SEATTLE (AP) - A doctor can't be held liable for resuscitating a baby who was born without a heartbeat, but survived with severe disabilities because of oxygen deprivation, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The baby's parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after his 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour after he was born.

Nichole Stewart-Graves and Todd Graves also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to try to revive their newborn son, Liam Stewart-Graves. The boy suffers from cerebral palsy, mental retardation, seizures and other disorders.

In a unanimous decision, Supreme Court justices agreed with a lower court that the couple's doctor, Katherine Vaughn, couldn't be sued for malpractice because she tried to keep the baby from dying.

In rejecting the lawsuit, the court said Liam's parents didn't have a right to refuse lifesaving treatment on his behalf.

"We will not recognize a standard of care that requires a health care provider to withhold treatment of a newborn infant based on the likelihood that the infant will be severely disabled, if it survives," the ruling said.

"Physicians must presume that life is preferable to death, even if that means a severely disabled life," the court added.

The justices also said Vaughn didn't violate medical consent rules by not getting parental permission to keep resuscitating Liam.

Nichole Stewart-Graves was under sedation after undergoing an emergency caesarian section, performed because the placenta had become detached from the uterus. Todd Graves was in a nearby room.

But the complexity of the situation and the lack of time meant Graves wouldn't have been able to make a meaningful, truly informed decision, the court said.

Phil Talmadge, the couple's lawyer, said the ruling could set a dangerous precedent for doctors trying to resuscitate babies in severe jeopardy, leaving the physicians worried that stopping the efforts would violate the baby's rights.

"The court has suggested pretty strongly to doctors that you'd better keep going, even if it doesn't make any sense," said Talmadge, who is a former state Supreme Court justice.

But Mary Spillane, the attorney for Vaughn and her employer, said the ruling avoided another moral dilemma by refusing to draw lines around when lifesaving measures must stop.

Otherwise, doctors "would have to be watching the clock, rather than resuscitating what was a fully viable newborn infant."

In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander said he would have reached the same result but differed on the reasoning.

Justice Tom Chambers also concurred with the majority's result, but wrote separately to offer a more limited legal analysis.