If you were a patient, would you agree to have the doctor film the medical process? Supporters believe that this is an innovative form of medical science popularization; The opposing party believes that this may violate the privacy of patients and their families. A common viewpoint in controversy is that the screen has already been coded, fulfilling the obligation of protection. However, the fact shows that simple facial occlusion is far from enough to build a secure privacy barrier: some patients have reported being photographed and posted on the doctor's personal social media account without their knowledge during their visit. Despite having their face coded, their body shape, voice, clothing, and even key medical history details can still be easily recognized by acquaintances. The patient's identity is composed of multiple characteristics, and "coding" does not mean "desensitization", let alone exemption from liability. The deeper problem lies in the asymmetry of rights and information between doctors and patients. During the medical process, most patients are in a relatively vulnerable and assisted position, and may not be aware of the recording behavior that occurs in the consultation room. If the doctor's "proactive notification" is merely a formality, or if "voluntary consent" is made in a half baked and unclear manner, the authenticity of such consent should be questioned. High quality medical science popularization has significant social value. Authoritative, vivid, and accessible dissemination of medical knowledge can effectively combat rumors, alleviate anxiety and misunderstandings, and is a flexible force to help build a "Healthy China". The typicality of the examination room scene and the vividness of real cases endow such videos with persuasiveness and infectiousness, making profound health knowledge known and perceptible. Many doctors have transformed their consultation rooms into science popularization lectures, with the original intention of benefiting more patients. This sense of social responsibility deserves recognition. From a broader perspective, the universal sharing of medical knowledge is the driving force for social civilization progress and is conducive to building a more harmonious and rational doctor-patient mutual trust relationship. The key to the problem lies in how to establish clear and solid boundaries. Firstly, 'informed consent' must become an unshakable prerequisite principle, and 'consent' should be specific, clear, and revocable. Doctors should fully inform patients of the recording purpose, scope of dissemination, potential risks, respect their right to say 'no', and should not affect their access to complete diagnosis and treatment services due to their refusal to record. Secondly, content processing must be handled with caution. Even with consent, personal information should be maximally de identified to avoid displaying details that may infer the patient's specific identity, and the use of videos should be strictly limited to avoid uncontrollable risks caused by secondary dissemination. It is gratifying that medical science popularization is moving towards standardization. In November 2025, the National Health Commission issued the List of Negative Behaviors of Medical Personnel in Internet Health Science Popularization (for Trial Implementation) to draw a red line for Internet health science popularization and clarify the bottom line of behavior that medical personnel must abide by in the process of science popularization. The list lists ten 'not allowed' items, including the clear 'not to disclose patient personal information, or display identifiable images, pictures, or text without the patient's authorized consent'. At a tertiary hospital in the center of Shanghai, after multiple departments discussed, a "Consultation Room Notification Desk Card" was launched. This card placed at the corner of the table clearly lists the core principles: actively informing about the shooting behavior, explaining the purpose of science popularization, promising multiple protections such as facial coding and sound blurring, ensuring patients' right to stop at any time, and clarifying that "opposing the shooting will not affect the diagnosis and treatment attitude". Innovative forms and sticking to the bottom line are not necessarily contradictory, and need to be finely calibrated in practice. The camera in the consultation room cannot be a multiple-choice question of "either black or white". How to balance the value of science popularization with the rights of patients, which not only reflects the breadth of knowledge sharing, but also respects the warmth of individuals, should become a necessary question for all parties to participate in the future. (New Society)