Maine’s supreme court recently decided a case of rights over a child by dividing them in half, agreeing that even while the child is in the custody of the state, his parents have a say in a possible life-or-death decision: whether to put into effect a do-not-resuscitate order.

But the parents’ role is restricted – they must be heard by a court on the issue but they would not determine whether such an order is permissible. The question of parental rights is always emotional and often shifting as the culture changes, but the court was correct to allow but limit rights in this case.

Matthew W., born in Bangor in August 2005, appears to have been shaken so violently and perhaps repeatedly that by age 6 weeks he suffered serious, permanent brain damage, leaving him likely incapable of normal development. The child’s father has been accused of causing this damage. The state has been involved with the family since the day after Matthew W.’s birth, when hospital officials alleged the parents were unable to properly care for their child.

A do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order means Matthew W. would not be placed on a ventilator or given cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but would get medical treatment such as medication, surgery or oxygen if the need arose. The amount of treatment to provide a family member with little expectation of living a full or happy life subsequently is something many families discuss; it is a painful but increasingly common event in an age of swift medical advancement.

The conflict in this case is whether the fact of state custody abrogates the parents’ ability to make the decision.

Maine law gives the state the right to make medical decisions for children in custody, but the supreme court sided with the father of Matthew W. when it concluded that a DNR order is different from other medical opinions because it holds the possibility of terminating all other parental rights.

“Exercise of DNR over the parents’ objections not only infringes upon the fundamental right of parenthood,” says the decision, written by Justice Warren Silver, “but could have the effect of conclusively preventing parents from raising their child or ever again exercising their fundamental rights.”

The district court may still find, after a full evidentiary hearing, that it is in Matthew’s best interest to have a DNR in effect. But not before the parents have an opportunity to provide their own views.