In which one of the following paragraphs are all the footnote numbers correctly placed?

Select one:

a.

McQuoid-Mason¹posits that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to people in emergency situations where the injured or ill person's life or health is seriously endangered. What is to be understood by 'emergency medical services' as used in the Bill of Rights?² The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the normal meaning of the words 'emergency medical treatment' did not include ongoing treatment of chronic diseases in order to prolong life.³According to Madala J,'[t]here is some suddenness and at times even an element of unexpectedness in the concept "emergency medical treatment".⁴'The criterion adopted by the High Court inCastell v De Greef-⁵ a criterion originally formulated by the High Court of Australia-⁶ was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal inBeukes v Smith.⁷

b.

McQuoid-Mason¹posits that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to people in emergency situations where the injured or ill person's life or health is seriously endangered. What is to be understood by 'emergency medical services' as used in the Bill of Rights²?The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the normal meaning of the words 'emergency medical treatment' did not include ongoing treatment of chronic diseases in order to prolong life³.According to Madala J, '[t]here is some suddenness and at times even an element of unexpectedness in the concept "emergency medical treatment"⁴.'The criterion adopted by the High Court inCastell v De Greef⁵-a criterion originally formulated by the High Court of Australia⁶ -was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal inBeukes v Smith⁷.

c.

McQuoid-Masonposits that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to people in emergency situations where the injured or ill person's life or health is seriously endangered.¹ What is to be understood by 'emergency medical services' as used in the Bill of Rights?²The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the normal meaning of the words 'emergency medical treatment' did not include ongoing treatment of chronic diseases in order to prolong life.³According to Madala J, '[t]here is some suddenness and at times even an element of unexpectedness in the concept "emergency medical treatment".'⁴The criterion adopted by the High Court inCastell v De Greef-⁵ a criterion originally formulated by the High Court of Australia-⁶ was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal inBeukes v Smith.⁷

d.

McQuoid-Mason¹posits that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to people in emergency situations where the injured or ill person's life or health is seriously endangered. What is to be understood by 'emergency medical services' as used in the Bill of Rights?²The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the normal meaning of the words 'emergency medical treatment' did not include ongoing treatment of chronic diseases in order to prolong life.³According to Madala J, '[t]here is some suddenness and at times even an element of unexpectedness in the concept "emergency medical treatment".'⁴The criterion adopted by the High Court inCastell v De Greef⁵- a criterion originally formulated by the High Court of Australia⁶- was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal inBeukes v Smith.⁷

e.

McQuoid-Mason¹posits that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to people in emergency situations where the injured or ill person's life or health is seriously endangered.What is to be understood by 'emergency medical services' as used in the Bill of Rights²?The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the normal meaning of the words 'emergency medical treatment' did not include ongoing treatment of chronic diseases in order to prolong life³.According to Madala J, '[t]here is some suddenness and at times even an element of unexpectedness in the concept "emergency medical treatment".⁴'The criterion adopted by the High Court inCastell v De Greef⁵- a criterion originally formulated by the High Court of Australia⁶- was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal inBeukes v Smith⁷.