Recently, a private clinic in Yinan County, Shandong Province, China, caused an uproar after posting a notice titled "The fee level has nothing to do with medical ethics; we must abandon low-end patients." The person in charge claimed this was "to protect himself," but local health authorities stated that such remarks seriously violate medical ethics and have already conducted an interview and ordered rectification.
According to Chinese media outlets 'Shangyou News' and 'He News', the notice circulating online divided patients into "low-end" and "premium" categories and compared the two. The notice stated, "A low-end patient, spends 1 yuan, wants 10 yuan worth of medicine, 100 yuan worth of results, and even expects 1,000 yuan worth of service! Then complains, nitpicks, tries to extort money. If you don’t satisfy him, he accuses you of lacking medical ethics." In contrast, "A premium patient… as long as you have real skills and can solve his problem, he never haggles over the price. Even if the price is a bit high, he is willing to pay!"
The clinic’s person in charge confirmed the notice was real, explaining that he saw this content on an online platform, thought it made sense, and copied it. He added that operating the clinic incurs costs, and he often feels helpless when faced with patients who are uncooperative with treatment, complain about high fees, or intentionally make things difficult.
"Running a clinic, you can’t expect to save everyone; too much compassion is not possible," he stressed, saying that the action was “to protect myself.”
After the incident surfaced online, it quickly drew strong criticism from Chinese netizens. Some questioned, "How exactly do you differentiate between high-end and low-end patients? By their character or by their financial means?" Many felt that grading patients and openly declaring the abandonment of "low-end patients" completely violates the traditional ethic of "doctors treat patients like family."
In response to public pressure, the Yinan County Health Bureau acted quickly. On January 13, the bureau issued a notice stating that the remarks “seriously violate the fundamental requirements of a doctor's compassion and the medical ethics of medical institutions,” that the responsible party had been summoned for criticism, and that the clinic was ordered to rectify the situation immediately.
Currently, the notice has been removed.
The official statement clarified that the clinic is a private medical institution and that the responsible person, dissatisfied with some patients paying low fees but demanding excessive service, downloaded the notice’s content from the internet and posted it.