Final answer:
The criteria 'duty owed, dereliction of duty, direct cause, and damages' are key to proving negligence which can arise in medical contexts due to flawed procedures or defective equipment, raising the question of liability.
Step-by-step explanation:
The criteria of establishing "duty owed, dereliction of duty, direct cause, and damages" are fundamental elements in the legal concept of negligence. In legal cases, proving negligence involves showing that these four elements existed and that a breach of duty led to harm or damage. In medical contexts, such scenarios can occur when health-care workers strictly follow a flawed procedure or when equipment from manufacturers fails. It raises questions about liability and the respective roles of individuals, organizations, and the government in mitigating risks and ensuring safety in healthcare.
For instance, should hospitals or health-care workers be held liable if they have strictly followed a flawed procedure? There's a complex interplay between maintaining strict adherence to protocols and the responsibility that comes when those protocols are flawed or when medical equipment is found to be defective. Evidently, the process of determining liability in these cases is intricate, as it involves not only the healthcare providers but also potentially manufacturers of medical equipment and regulatory bodies.
The Wrongness of Killing and Active Euthanasia
The discussion on active euthanasia delves into ethical considerations such as the wrongness of killing, the physician's role, and the potential for a slippery slope in practice. Opponents argue that active euthanasia conflicts with the fundamental duty of a physician to help and not harm patients, engaging in a practice that could be prone to misuse or abuse, raising significant ethical and legal concerns.