— (1) Neither provision of nutrition nor hydration was in EUP's best interests. (2) The family had disagreed with the trust's palliative care plan but the trust, citing legal advice likely grounded on its belief that further treatment would be unethical, did not make an application to court. The judge criticised the trust for not following his guidance in Practice Guidance (Court of Protection: Serious Medical Treatment) [2020] EWCOP 2.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/GUP_v_EUP_(2024)_EWCOP_3?id=061224-2142