I like to think of criticism as scientific peer review. The purpose of that is not to criticise the person, but to strengthen the validity of their research by eliminating any remaining errors they may have missed.

Your peers aren't harming you by finding fault, they're strengthening your position by doing so.

I personally hate it when a bug slips through to production, and I always profusely thank anyone that spots one before it does. Or after. Whatever, as long as it gets fixed...