Final answer:
Negligence and malpractice share common ground as non-intentional torts where harm results from a breach of duty, with malpractice being a specialized form of negligence in a professional setting. Neither involves intent to harm, aligning with the principle of nonmaleficence which dictates the avoidance of unnecessary harm in professional practice.
Step-by-step explanation:
Negligence and malpractice have several things in common. Firstly, both negligence and malpractice are classified as non-intentional torts, which means they are types of civil wrongs where the injury or harm occurs as a result of a breach of duty, rather than from intentional wrongdoing. Secondly, malpractice is essentially a form of negligence that occurs in a professional context, specifically when a professional fails to perform his or her duties to the standard required by their profession, leading to harm to a patient or client. Finally, neither negligence nor malpractice involves the intent to do harm; harm occurs as a result of carelessness or failure to follow a standard of care.
The principle of nonmaleficence is deeply related to these concepts, as it underlines the obligation professionals have to avoid causing harm. This principle is integral in clinical settings, where it mandates that any potential harms to patients should be carefully weighed against the benefits, and only necessary harms should be accepted in the course of treatment or research trials. By following the principle of nonmaleficence, professionals can minimize the risk of negligent or malpractice actions.