You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Laws
  • Article
  • Open Access

27 June 2025

How Can Legal Measures Protect Chinese Doctors from Patient Violence?

,
and
1
Institute of International Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
2
The Faculty of Law and Justice, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

This article explores the persistent issue of assaults on medical staff in China that are unrelated to malpractice, which exacerbate tensions in doctor–patient relationships. These conflicts are primarily fueled by factors such as the disparity between doctors and patients, unequal distribution of medical resources, and inadequacies in the legal protection system. Drawing on Foucault’s micro-power theory, this research proposes a tripartite governance model that includes reconfiguring medical resources through public–private partnerships, implementing proactive legal mechanisms such as hospital-embedded policing systems, and establishing mandatory protocols for treatment explanations to reduce information asymmetry. The article also highlights the importance of medical conflict mediation systems to effectively resolve disputes and ensure satisfaction for all parties involved.

1. Introduction

The deterioration of doctor–patient relationships in China has reached critical levels. According to the White Paper on Chinese Physicians’ Practice Status released by the Chinese Medical Doctor Association in 2018, among 42,838 respondents, only 34% of doctors reported never having personally experienced violent attacks on medical staff, while 66% had encountered doctor–patient conflicts of varying degrees (Chinese Medical Doctor Association 2018). Another study shows that, Chinese medical institutions reported 345 violent incidents between 2000 and 2020, in which 54 involved murdered victims (Zhang et al. 2021). Moreover, in the Work Report of The Supreme People’s Procuratorate, a total of 427 people were prosecuted for crimes involving attacks on or harassment of medical personnel in 2021 (The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China 2022). The frequent occurrence of violent acts against medical staff has garnered significant attention from several sectors. This phenomenon transcends individual disputes, reflecting systemic failures in China’s healthcare architecture. China’s healthcare reforms must address not only institutional organization but also the power asymmetries embedded in clinical encounters (Zhou and Grady 2016). This dual focus is essential for cultivating trust—the cornerstone of therapeutic alliances in medical practice (Hall et al. 2002).
However, existing scholarship predominantly examines doctor–patient tensions through empirical lenses. For instance, some scholars suppose that the tension in doctor–patient interactions arises due to a lack of trust mechanisms, as well as unfamiliarity between doctors and patients (Lv 2024). The issue stems from the intrinsic structure of hospitals as urban medical facilities, which inevitably give rise to impersonal interactions between doctors and patients. As a result, the trust mechanisms now in place have little effectiveness in enhancing these relationships (Li et al. 2019). Some researchers argue that it is important to examine the development of doctor–patient interactions in China from a historical standpoint, focusing on the concept of power (Zhou and Grady 2016). Moreover, research shows the doctor–patient relationship requires balancing clinical expertise and patient accessibility. This requires striking a calibrated equilibrium between temporal constraints of clinical encounters and discursive reciprocity (Yan 2023). While valuable, these approaches neglect the meso-level institutional dynamics—particularly how China’s “three-tier hospital system” structurally allocates both medical resources and epistemic authority. Tertiary hospitals handle 58% of outpatient visits but employ only 22% of doctors (National Health Commission 2022). This concentration of expertise creates Foucaultian “zones of power contestation” where patients’ lay knowledge clashes with biomedical authority (Wu and Yuan 2017).
Foucault’s micro-power theory deconstructs power into a decentralized network that permeates daily interactions, emphasizing its invisible operation through knowledge production and disciplinary mechanisms (Turkel 1990). In the doctor–patient relationship, the doctor’s authority—rooted in institutional recognition of medical knowledge (e.g., professional certification)—creates a power gap. Hospital processes (e.g., waiting rules, treatment protocols) further reinforce this asymmetry through disciplinary mechanisms. This symbiotic relationship between power and knowledge often makes patients dissatisfied due to information blind spots and institutional passivity, which may eventually turn into violent conflicts. This study uses this theory to reveal that the essence of doctor—patient conflicts is not only an individual dispute, but also an external manifestation of the imbalance in the micro-power structure within the medical system, providing a theoretical basis for reconstructing an equal interaction mechanism.
Analyzing from the paradigm of Foucault’s micro-power theory, the doctor–patient relationship within the realm of power relations primarily encompasses two specific dimensions: the inherent authority of doctors derived from their professional medical expertise, and the autonomous cognitive agency and power possessed by patients (Liu and Jia 2017). Consequently, whether harmony and unity can be achieved in the doctor–patient relationship hinges on whether a dynamic equilibrium is attained through the interplay and negotiation of these two dimensions of power. While Foucault’s power–knowledge dyad illuminates status disparities in clinical encounters, its application requires contextualization within China’s unique medico-legal landscape. Moreover, the logical linkages between these aspects must be explained, and management strategies from various viewpoints must be integrated.

2. Uncovering the Truth Behind Malicious Attacks on Doctor

In December 2019, Sun Wenbin admitted his mother to Civil Aviation General Hospital but grew dissatisfied with Dr. Yang Wen’s treatment, harboring resentment and plotting revenge. On December 24, he used a premeditated sharp knife to repeatedly stab Dr. Yang in the emergency room, causing her death. The court ruled that Sun’s actions constituted intentional homicide, noting the crime’s extreme viciousness, cruel methods, severe consequences, and significant social harm. While Sun voluntarily surrendered and confessed post-crime, these factors were deemed insufficient to mitigate punishment due to the offense’s gravity. He was sentenced to the highest penalty under the law in the first-instance judgment, highlighting the judiciary’s strict stance against violent attacks on medical professionals (China Court 2019). Another highly publicized case occurred in 2020; a violent attack on medical staff occurred at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. Cui, upset that his eye treatment results did not meet his expectations, stormed the outpatient department’s seventh floor with a knife, injuring multiple doctors, nurses, and a bystander. His primary target, Dr. Tao Yong—who had restored some vision to Cui despite his severe complications and had shown concern for Cui’s finances—was brutally chased and slashed from the seventh to sixth floor. Dr. Tao suffered life-threatening injuries, including fractures, nerve and muscle damage, and significant blood loss, leaving him unable to perform surgeries post-recovery. Cui was convicted of intentional homicide and sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve and lifelong deprivation of political rights (The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China 2021).
Doctor–patient conflicts are not just disagreements between the two parties, but rather, they are intricately connected to the underlying social culture and medical system (Lv 2020). To identify the specific causes of malicious attacks on doctors, this study retrieved 131 criminal judgments (2012–2023) by searching keywords such as “killing medical staff,” “assaulting medical staff,” “retaliating against doctors,” and “beating doctors” on China Judgments Online. It should be acknowledged that the above-mentioned data and materials serving as the research foundation are not perfect. Firstly, as it is difficult to obtain data on deviant behavior in China and news reports cannot guarantee complete accuracy, this study can only use violent acts against medical staff constituting crimes as recorded in criminal judgments as research samples, even though this is insufficient to fully reflect the phenomenon of violence against medical personnel. Secondly, the information contained in the collected criminal judgments also has limitations, as not all criminal judgments are publicly disclosed. Therefore, the criminal judgments collected in this study may only reflect a portion of the cases that have occurred. Despite this, these 131 judgments still reveal many commonalities and characteristics of such malicious attack cases.
In terms of victims’ identities, the overwhelming majority of victims in violent crimes against medical personnel in China were doctors, rather than nurses (Figure 1). By contrast, numerous studies from outside China have concluded that nurses are the primary victims of most violent attacks on nurses. This cross-cultural difference in victim occupations has been confirmed by other research (Sun et al. 2017), which is one reason why this study focuses on the doctor as its research target.
Figure 1. Victims’ identity in medical violence crime cases (2012–2023). Source: China Judgments Online.
Based on relevant factors such as the triggering causes of conflicts, criminal motives, and whether criminal tools were prepared, this study classifies these cases into three types: Hatred-based crimes, Reactive Attacks, and Fortuitous Incidents (Table 1).
Table 1. Specific Types and Relevant Information of 131 Violent Crimes Against Medical Personnel Cases 1.
Hatred-based crimes refer to acts of violently killing or injuring doctors to retaliate against them under the domination of hatred motives, which constitute violations of criminal law. In the sample of this study, there were 43 cases of hatred-based crimes, accounting for 32.8% of all cases. Hatred-based crimes exhibit the following characteristics: (1) The hatred motive is manifested as the perpetrator’s deep resentment toward the victim and the pursuit of the victim’s death. (2) The hatred toward the victim primarily stems from the perpetrator’s dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes. Among the 43 hatred-based crime cases, 31 perpetrators’ hatred originated from dissatisfaction with treatment outcomes, accounting for 72.1% of this crime type (far higher than the proportion in the other two types). (3) The criminal acts in hatred-based crimes are mostly premeditated and cruel. In hatred-based crime cases, 35 perpetrators prepared criminal tools before committing the crime, accounting for 81.4% of this type. Driven by hatred and revenge motives and aided by criminal tools, the means of crime in this category are extremely cruel. (4) Hatred-based crimes result in the most severe outcomes. Among these cases, 22 caused serious injuries or death, exceeding half of the total. Specifically, 14 cases led to victim deaths (32.6% of this type), and 8 caused serious injuries (18.6%). Compared with other types of violent crimes against medical personnel, hatred-based crimes have the gravest consequences.
Reactive attacks refer to criminal acts where perpetrators express their dissatisfaction by committing offenses due to conflicts with medical institutions over issues such as medical services or hospital management. In the research sample, there were 75 cases of reactive attacks, accounting for 57.3% of all cases. Reactive attacks on medical staff exhibit the following characteristics: (1) The primary cause of conflict in reactive attacks is the perpetrator’s dissatisfaction with medical services. A total of 66 cases (88% of this type) involved crimes committed due to dissatisfaction with factors such as the speed of medical service delivery, medical payment procedures, or the attending doctor’s attitude. (2) Reactive attacks are mostly impromptu, with perpetrators generally not preparing beforehand. Only 1 case (1.3%) involved premeditated preparation of criminal tools. (3) The consequences of reactive attacks are less severe compared to hatred-based crimes. None resulted in death or serious injury; 24 cases (32%) caused minor injuries, and 29 cases (38.7%) resulted in slight injuries or less. (4) The study also found a high prevalence of pre-offense alcohol consumption among perpetrators of reactive attacks. In 37 cases (49.3% of this type), the perpetrators were under the influence of alcohol when committing the crimes.
Fortuitous incidents refer to crimes committed solely due to the perpetrator’s own reasons, with the occurrence of the crime being accidental for the victim. In the research sample, fortuitous medical violence incidents were the least common, with only 13 cases, accounting for 9.9% of all cases. Such incidents exhibit the following characteristics: (1) There is no prior interaction or doctor–patient relationship between the perpetrator and the victim before the crime occurs. (2) Perpetrators often commit crimes to vent emotions or pursue a specific goal, neither of which is related to the victim, who is randomly selected. (3) A high proportion of perpetrators in fortuitous incidents consumed alcohol before the crime. In 7 cases (53.8% of this type), the perpetrators were under the influence of alcohol when committing the offenses.
Through a meticulous analysis of these cases, it becomes strikingly evident that in 118 instances, accounting for 90.1% of the total, both hatred-based crimes and reactive attacks were preceded by adverse doctor–patient interactions. Owing to the previously discussed “doctor–patient power gap,” when doctors devise diagnosis and treatment plans, they must consider multifaceted factors such as patients’ medical conditions and physical constitutions. However, when this information is conveyed to patients, the latter usually only comprehend basic aspects like treatment results and expenses. Based on this limited understanding, patients form their own interpretations and expectations, while remaining unable to fathom the intricate underlying reasons and details. This situation exemplifies a significant divergence in how the interacting parties perceive the meaning of the information exchanged. In the face of such interpretive discrepancies, effective communication on an equal footing between doctors and patients proves arduous. Whenever treatment plans or medical procedures deviate from patients’ self-formed understandings and expectations, patients tend to cast doubt on the doctors’ strategies and the effectiveness of the treatment. Should the two parties persistently fail to converge in their comprehension of the information’s significance and value, conflicts will inevitably emerge during their interactions. These conflicts then escalate into negative dynamics, eventually giving rise to animosity or dissatisfaction towards doctors.
Two significant violent attacks against Beijing’s medical personnel stemmed mostly from these communication problems. Though experts said the patient’s condition had improved greatly, the underlying reason for the Chaoyang Hospital event was the patient’s discontent with the mismatch between the treatment outcomes and their expectations. The patient in the Civil Aviation Hospital incident refused to follow the doctor’s treatment plan and lacked appropriate communication throughout the medical process (Peng 2017). Furthermore, the duration of doctor–patient contact correlates negatively with the incidence of disputes (Yan 2023). Research findings reveal that perpetrators of violent acts against medical personnel predominantly have low educational attainments. A staggering 93.3% of them have either received no formal education or only completed basic schooling (Chai and Chen 2024). This objective reality strongly suggests that a lower level of education significantly impedes patients’ ability to understand the information communicated by doctors.
Moreover, the scarcity of sophisticated medical services falls short of meeting people’s expectations for prompt medical care. Fueled by the uneven distribution of medical resources and heavy reliance on the expertise of healthcare professionals, premier hospitals grapple with acute shortages in service provision. Consequently, 64.1% of the factors precipitating criminal acts stem from patients’ discontent with medical services, hospital administration, or the resolution of medical disputes. Among the 8 incidents linked to waiting times, 6 attacks triggered by extended waits took place at tertiary medical facilities. During medical conflicts, patients typically exhibit resistance, driven by information deficits and an ingrained mistrust of expert decisions (The Paper News 2019).
Ultimately, the persistent incidence of assaults on doctors is indicative of deep-seated conflicts within doctor–patient interactions. Patients’ distrust and uncertainty usually result from strong suspicion of doctors’ moral behavior. The contradiction between patients’ expectation of better treatment results and their wish to reduce costs as much as possible tends to foster their distrust. However, without a comprehensive healthcare system that allows people to submit feedback on the quality of medical treatments.

5. Conclusions

The doctor–patient relationship is a legal and equal partnership between persons that is based on trust and protected by the medical system. The doctors’ possession of specialized expertise results in an inherent disparity in their social standing compared to patients. This research integrates the analysis of factors including victims, perpetrators, crime causes, and crime locations in 131 criminal verdicts with medical data, revealing that the unequal distribution of medical resources and legal flaws have jointly exacerbated tensions and fueled conflicts.
This article seeks to provide policy solutions for addressing the inequitable allocation of medical resources across various levels and areas. The objective is to alleviate the treatment burdens faced by doctors and enhance communication and service quality between doctors and patients. Moreover, the article proposes implementing the concept of risk prevention by giving hospital police the authority to rapidly mediate disagreements and authorizing prosecutors to handle cases of unfair punishment. In addition, the article supports the implementation of legislative requirements that oblige doctors to provide explanations for important medical issues, and for hospitals to assume the responsibility of proving their practices during legal disputes in order to govern hospital practices. Finally, it implements a varied dispute resolution procedure, using mediation to settle issues.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.S.; Data curation, R.G.; Writing—original draft, W.S. and R.G.; Writing—review & editing, W.S., R.G. and H.W.; Visualization, H.W.; Supervision, W.S.; Project administration, W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to all the cases and data mentioned in our paper are derived from government reports or public media coverage. According to Article 2 of China’s Regulations on the Review of Scientific and Technological Ethics (《科技伦理审查办法》) and Article 3 of the Regulations on the Ethical Review of Life Sciences and Medical Research Involving Humans (《涉及人的生命科学和医学研究伦理审查办法》), the research in this paper also falls outside the scope of review.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chai, Songyang, and Guochen Chen. 2024. Identification of Key Populations, Time and Space, And High-Risk Factors for Violent Medical Injuries. Health Law 32: 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, Aixue, Yushan Ji, and Nanfu He. 2013. Reform of the healthcare system should prevent over-marketisation. Economic Review Journal 8: 31–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. China Court. 2019. China Court Civil Aviation General Hospital Injury Incident: Female Doctor Died Due to Injury. December 25. Available online: https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2019/12/id/4743442.shtml (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  4. China Quality News. 2019. Violent Attacks on Medical Staff by Patients Cannot be Limited to “Grievance Awards”. February 25. Available online: https://www.cqn.com.cn/ms/content/2019-02/25/content_6805795.htm (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  5. Chinese Medical Doctor Association. 2018. White Paper on Chinese Physicians’ Practice Status (2017). Available online: https://www.cmda.net/u/cms/www/201807/06181247ffex.pdf (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  6. DingXiangRenCai. 2024. Hospital Policy: Unjustified Complaints Won’t Lead to Penalties—Instead, “Comfort Payments” and “Grievance Awards” Offered! September 9. Available online: https://www.jobmd.cn/article/qtyzzx/10008043.htm (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  7. Dong, Chonghao, Maorui Yang, Hanqing Zhao, Gordon G. Liu, and Yujie Cui. 2025. An Analysis of the Standard and Responsibility of Excessive Medical Tort. Nursing and Rehabilitation 4: 87–89. [Google Scholar]
  8. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon Books. ISBN 978-0394499420. [Google Scholar]
  9. Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0394739540. [Google Scholar]
  10. Frenk, Julio. 2010. The Global Health System: Strengthening National Health Systems as the Next Step for Global Progress. PLoS Medicine 7: e1000089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hall, Mark A., Elizabeth Dugan, Beiyao Zheng, and Aneil K. Mishra. 2002. Trust in Physicians and Medical Institutions: What Is It, Can It Be Measured, and Does It Matter? Milbank Quarterly 79: 613–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hsiao, William C. 2014. Correcting past health policy mistakes. Daedalus 143: 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Legal Daily. 2024. Rapid Response to Demands: Contributing to “Ensuring Access to Good Medical Care”. March 28. Available online: http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/commentary/content/2024-03/28/content_8978650.html (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  14. Li, Chang, and Jianxin Wang. 2023. The Role reconfiguration of Public Security Organs Participating in the Maintenance of Hospital Public Security Order. Journal of Hubei University of Police 6: 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, Zhaoxu, Jin Zhang, Liyan Zhu, Hongyan Yin, Guodong Liu, Chongyan Ji, Xianhong Huang, Lei Han, and Jinfeng Yu. 2019. Time Attribute of China’s Doctor-Patient Conflict and Social Governance Strategies. Chinese Hospital Management 39: 65–67. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Time+Attribute+of+China%27s+Doctor-patient+Conflict+and+Social+Governance+Strategies&btnG= (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  16. Liu, Junxiang, Yonghui Ma, and Jingzi Xu. 2015. An Evaluation on Equity in Current Primary Healthcare Reform in China. Asian Bioethics Review 7: 277–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Liu, Pengfei, and Zhonghai Jia. 2017. Examining Chinese Doctor-Patient Conflicts through the Lens of Foucault’s Micro-power theory. The Northern Forum 1: 131–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lv, Xiankang. 2024. Fostering Trust through Emotional Communication: An Emotional-Sociological Approach to Rebuild Doctor-Patient Trust. Nankai Journal (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 1: 1–10. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E2%80%9C%E7%BC%98%E6%83%85%E7%BB%93%E4%BF%A1%E2%80%9D%3A+%E9%87%8D%E5%BB%BA%E5%8C%BB%E6%82%A3%E4%BF%A1%E4%BB%BB%E7%9A%84%E6%83%85%E6%84%9F%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E5%AD%A6%E8%B7%AF%E5%BE%84&btnG= (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  19. Lv, Xiaokang. 2020. From Doctor-Patient Relationship Governance to Doctor-Patient Community Construction: A Coordinated Approach to Rebuilding Doctor-Patient Trust. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science Edition) 4: 84–93. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E4%BB%8E%E5%85%B3%E7%B3%BB%E6%B2%BB%E7%90%86%E5%88%B0%E5%85%B1%E5%90%8C%E4%BD%93%E5%BB%BA%E8%AE%BE%3A%E9%87%8D%E5%BB%BA%E5%8C%BB%E6%82%A3%E4%BF%A1%E4%BB%BB%E7%9A%84%E5%8D%8F%E5%90%8C%E8%B7%AF%E5%BE%84 (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  20. National Healthcare Security Administration. 2021. National Medical Security Development Statistical Bulletin; June 8. Available online: https://www.nhsa.gov.cn/art/2022/6/8/art_7_8276.html?eqid=d4fa78af0003179d000000036433b153 (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  21. National Health Commission. 2022. China Health Statistical Yearbook; Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Press.
  22. Paper News. 2019. Breaking: Details Emerge on Fatal Stabbing of Doctor at Beijing Civil Aviation General Hospital; State Rolls out Legislation to Combat Medical Disturbances. December 29, Available online: https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_5376817 (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  23. Peng, Jie. 2017. Knowledge Disparity and Structural Distrust: The Generative Logic of Patient Resistance in Medical Disputes. Academic Research 2: 66–71. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=zh-CN&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%E7%9F%A5%E8%AF%86%E4%B8%8D%E5%AF%B9%E7%AD%89%E4%B8%8E%E7%BB%93%E6%9E%84%E6%80%A7%E4%B8%8D%E4%BF%A1%E4%BB%BB%3A%E5%8C%BB%E7%96%97%E7%BA%A0%E7%BA%B7%E4%B8%AD%E6%82%A3%E8%80%85%E6%8A%97%E4%BA%89%E7%9A%84%E7%94%9F%E6%88%90%E9%80%BB%E8%BE%91&btnG= (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  24. People’s Daily. 2020. Ministry of Justice: Crack Down on Violent Attacks against Medical Staff and other Illegal Acts with Severity, Rigor, and Speed. February 24. Available online: https://www.peopleapp.com/column/30036897904-500001949556 (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  25. People’s Daily. 2024. Speed is the Most Basic Requirement for Responding to Patients’ Demands. March 28. Available online: http://health.people.cn/n1/2024/0328/c14739-40205258.html (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  26. Sun, Peihang, Xue Zhang, Yihua Sun, Hongkun Ma, Mingli Jiao, Kai Xing, Zheng Kang, Ning Ning, Yapeng Fu, Qunhong Wu, and et al. 2017. Workplace Violence against Health Care Workers in North Chinese Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14: 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China. 2021. Suspended death! Beijing Chaoyang Hospital Cui Zhenguo’s medical case was sentenced in the first instance. March 2. Available online: https://www.spp.gov.cn/zdgz/202102/t20210203_508352.shtml (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  28. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China. 2022. 2021 Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. March 15. Available online: https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/202203/t20220315_549267.shtml (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  29. The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China. 2023. 2022 Work Report of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. March 17. Available online: https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/gzbg/202303/t20230317_608767.shtml (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  30. Turkel, Gerald. 1990. Michel Foucault: Law, Power, and Knowledge. Journal of Law and Society 17: 170–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, Mengxiao, Gordon G. Liu, Hanqing Zhao, Thomas Butt, Maorui Yang, and Yujie Cui. 2020. The Role of Mediation in Solving Medical Disputes in China. BMC Health Services Research 20: 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, Rui. 2015. On the Risk Prevention Function of Justice in the Context of Risk Society. Journal of Lanzhou University (Social Sciences) 43: 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wu, Yexin, and Mingjian Yuan. 2017. Governance of Doctor-Patient Conflict: The Absence of the rule of law and Its Correction—An Interpretative Framework Based on Identity Conflict. Journal of Social Sciences 12: 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xu, Ming. 2020. Reflection and Improvement: Multiple Legal Governance in Medical Disputes. Zheng Fa Lun Cong 2: 48–58. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yan, Zehua. 2023. The Interaction between Doctor-Patient Communication Duration and Doctors’ Perceptions of Sei-Tech Efficiency and Doctor-Patient Conflicts. Social Development Research 10: 84–102, 239–240. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yu, Liangchun, and Huimin Liu. 2020. Stakeholders, Healthcare Equity and the Reform of China’s Healthcare System. Shandong Social Sciences 7: 125–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Boyuan. 2016. Transformation of China’s Medical Risk Governance Model and Institutional Construction—An Appraisal of the Regulations on the Prevention and Handling of Medical Disputes. Hebei Law Science 34: 114–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, Xin, Min Huang, Maorui Yang, Qunhong Wu, Hongkun Ma, Kai Xing, Ying Zhang, and Yalan Wang. 2021. Trends in Workplace Violence Involving Health care Professionals in China from 2000 to 2020: A review. Medical Science Monitor 27: e928393-1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Zhao, Min. 2011. Evaluation of the third-party mediation mechanism for medical disputes in China. Med. & L. 30: 401–16. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zhou, Peiling, and Sue C. Grady. 2016. Three Modes of Power Operation: Understanding Doctor-Patient Conflicts in China’s Hospital Therapeutic Landscapes. Health & Place 42: 137–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.