RL-based medical questionnaire systems have shown great potential in medical scenarios. However, their safety and robustness remain unresolved. This study performs a comprehensive evaluation on adversarial attack methods to identify and analyze their potential vulnerabilities. We formulate the diagnosis process as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), where the state is the patient responses and unasked questions, and the action is either to ask a question or to make a diagnosis. We implemented six prevailing major attack methods, including the Fast Gradient Signed Method (FGSM), Projected Gradient Descent (PGD), Carlini & Wagner Attack (C&W) attack, Basic Iterative Method (BIM), DeepFool, and AutoAttack, with seven epsilon values each. To ensure the generated adversarial examples remain clinically plausible, we developed a comprehensive medical validation framework consisting of 247 medical constraints, including physiological bounds, symptom correlations, and conditional medical constraints. We achieved a 97.6% success rate in generating clinically plausible adversarial samples. We performed our experiment on the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) dataset (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis/), which consists of 182,630 samples, to predict the participant's 4-year mortality rate. We evaluated our attacks on the AdaptiveFS framework proposed in arXiv:2004.00994. Our results show that adversarial attacks could significantly impact the diagnostic accuracy, with attack success rates ranging from 33.08% (FGSM) to 64.70% (AutoAttack). Our work has demonstrated that even under strict medical constraints on the input, such RL-based medical questionnaire systems still show significant vulnerabilities.