In the book of medical law, Guwandi (2004) stated that "'Negligence", in the general definition is not a violation of law and crime. Someone can be called negligent if he is indifferent or does not care, and does not consider to the other’s interests as applicable propriety in the society.
During the result of this negligence does not bring harm or injure to another person, there are no legal consequences for the person, because the law does not interfere in trivial cases (de minimus not curat lex, the law does not concern itself with trifles).
Sanctioned negligence as a result of laws must be accounted by the offender, if this negligence has caused the loss of both property damage and loss of life or limb defects in person.
To determine the negligence of doctors, Hariyani (2005) mentioned four elements, namely:
a. The existence of duty (obligation) to be implemented.
b. The existence of derelection of that duty (obligation deviation)
c. The damaged (damage / loss)
d. The proved of the direct causal relationship (directly related) between the violation of the obligation and the loss.
If the error or negligence is connected to the criminal law, then Jonkers (Guwandi, 2004) suggested four elements:
a. The act is contrary to law (wederrechtelijkheid)
b. The result of the act can be imagined (voorzeinbaarheid)
c. The result of the act could have been avoided (vermijdbaarheid)
d. The action can be blamed him (verwijtbaarheid), because in fact the perpetrator is able to imagine and avoid it.
Guwandi (2005) stated that to mention that a doctor has been negligent; it must be proved the following matters:
a. Contrary to the ethics, morals and discipline
b. Contrary to the law
c. Contrary to the standard of the medical profession
d. Shortage of science or science lags in the profession that has been generally accepted among them.
e. Neglect and negligence (Negligence, abandonment), careless, indifferent, less concerned about the safety of the patient, blatant error and so on.
