Phony Reason For Versed/Midazolam

One of the phony reasons for using Versed is "to protect patient modesty." This should be one of the things on my list of medical double speak. Versed is a drug. It has zero powers to clothe or cover the patient. So let's look at what these people REALLY mean.

What "protect the patients' modesty" means in medical terms is "we are going to make you forget (we hope) that we had you totally naked and exposed in the OR, for no reason whatsoever in many cases, while people ran in and out and made comments about your body parts. We like having a little chuckle in the OR and since you are going to have amnesia anyway, we are going to lie to you and say that our drug will protect you from us and our crude remarks." That's the truth of the matter. If you are like me, NECESSARY exposure to those people whom you have allowed is one thing. To be unnecessarily stripped naked and catheterized etc. is not OK. It is not OK to me to have you people deliberately yanking the gown up to attach leads etc. or shove tubes up my crotch. It is not OK to do all this under the premise that I won't remember it, because I do.

Not only was I given an amnesia and control drug against my will, the amnesia didn't work. I heard and saw everything people and it wasn't nice. The problem being that if you had REVEALED what Versed was and the AMNESIA part, then I wouldn't have been so completely taken aback at the conversation I heard. After all if I was expected to have amnesia then I would have no memory of the sub-human treatment and conversation would I, so the conversation would have pissed me off, but I would not have been wondering if I was in a parallel universe where patients were dogs. However I would never, ever have allowed this drug to be used on me if it had been explained. I said no to drugs like this without knowing about Versed! If you people are willing to violate me, my brain, the terms of my treatment, and informed consent laws, why then would I trust you at all?

So, the use of Versed isn't to protect patients' modesty at all. It is used so that you can BREACH patient modesty! I have read some interesting statements on www.allnurses.com which you can read here; http://allnurses.com/operating-room nursing/patient-modesty-concerns-196068.html

I have excerpted some exceptional ones... italics and bold face are mine as usual.

from Laurab14
Jun 05, 2010, 07:01 AM

Here is my perspective... I had a d&c and tubal ligation last summer, it was my first surgery ever. I am a RN, have been for 16 years. I have faith that modesty/dignity issues are followed 99% of the time, but I have witnessed "jokes" about patients, specifically about their body parts.

It was not necessarily for the part of being draped, or naked during the surgery. It was the fact that I don't REMEMBER any of it. I can't identify any of my surgical staff. It was a very weird experience to wake up in the recovery room and swear they hadn't even touch me yet. I guess I am more of a control-freak than I thought (most nurses are).

I consider myself a pretty modest person, 3 people have seen me naked in my adult life- my husband and 2 doctors. I don't like NOT knowing who those people were, and if I see them on the street (we live in a very rural area) are they thinking about me with naked with my legs in stirrups?

Now, here is where it gets funny... I know professionally they are not, just as I do not when I see former patients. But, as a patient, it makes me feel uncomfortable. If I was awake, and met these people and I had some control over the situation it might make a difference. It is the UNKNOWN that is always worse.

Not sure what we can do about it as nurses, but thanks for giving it a second thought, I hardly did until I became the patient.


from advo-kate2
Jun 15, 2010, 07:41 PM

".How about cases where the blanket never goes below the hip, the gown never above nipple line and no foley needed, then what? Do we still have to rearrange schedules to do surgery on a wrist or an ankle??"
Good question SandraCVRN.
The quick answer would be that those people who care about who they expose themselves to ( most people I know) would be looking for a guarantee, and that's not easy. Even explanations here differ as to the level of exposure for almost any proceedure, and there are varying levels of "full" disclosure posted here as well. So long story short, if you could honestly tell a wrist or ankle patient that there would be NO intimate exposure then that may be enough to mitagate a circumstance of mixed gender team.
(I am that wrist patient that expected to be awake, alert and aware of what was going on at all times. Instead I got Versed, general anesthetic and people playing with my crotch enough to give me a kidney infection. Why was none of this explained? This next post will give you an idea. Don't think that this doesn't happen. Even the fake anesthesiologist who had never seen me before in his life until I was out of control in the PACU asked me "Well what did you want us to do? Cancel your surgery?" (smirk, smirk) Well yes Dr. if the surgery couldn't be performed under the parameters that I laid out, then yes, surgery canceled. I could have found somebody else who was competent and capable enough to do it the way I wanted it done. This attitude is pervasive and it is leading to patient abuse...)

We go on from here to these posts;


from canoehead
Apr 29, 2010, 12:28 PM

I have no idea how often, I don't work in the OR. But I do know when getting patients ready for surgery, the people that really mind having their underwear off throw a complete fit when they think they might pee on themselves, and have strangers clean them up. I completely understand why they'd find that hard to take, and being stressed already, it seems kinder to say "I know, it's a stupid rule, but that's what they want. You'll be totally covered except the body parts they have to deal with." That statement is a bit of a fudge, but gee, if they were told everything I know about surgeries, exposure, and who is in the room they'd cancel outright, and remember, they'd still be sick and have to do it later anyway.
(So, it's OK to lie and omit vital information lest the patient CANCEL the surgery, which as I have explained is our RIGHT! No canoehead many of us would NOT have to have it done later! And if we did, we could choose somebody who wasn't violating patient rights in such an egregious way.)

No. 47
from morte
Apr 29, 2010, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by canoehead
I have no idea how often, I don't work in the OR. But I do know when getting patients ready for surgery, the people that really mind having their underwear off throw a complete fit when they think they might pee on themselves, and have strangers clean them up. I completely understand why they'd find that hard to take, and being stressed already, it seems kinder to say "I know, it's a stupid rule, but that's what they want. You'll be totally covered except the body parts they have to deal with." That statement is a bit of a fudge, but gee, if they were told everything I know about surgeries, exposure, and who is in the room they'd cancel outright, and remember, they'd still be sick and have to do it later anyway.

but if you purposefully omit facts, you dont have informed consent... (TOUCHE!)


from canoehead
Apr 29, 2010, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by morte
but if you purposefully omit facts, you dont have informed consent...
Yes,you are right.

Luckily the physician is responsible for getting the consent. I just verify the signature belongs to the right patient.

There are lots things that are not mentioned when patients go for surgery. Imagine if every nurse took it upon themselves to list off about five to every patient in the name of "informed consent." You know that once a couple surgeries got cancelled the hammer would come down to keep your mouth shut or lose your job. There wouldn't be any thought that gee...the patients should have been told, or practice should change. I work in reality, not legal utopia.
(FYI My surgeon never appeared at the hospital to get any informed consent. The nurse tricked me into signing a document ostensibly about "blood products" which was actually a non valid informed consent. You can see the exact document in my 2009 posts. The nurse had no problem signing that she verified my signature... And that I had been properly consented by my surgeon when no such thing had occurred. I wish that I hadn't been so trusting because now I feel not only violated, abused and damaged, but STUPID! Also canoehead, those laws are there for a reason. Consent is NOT legal utopia! Consent means that the patient agrees with the risk, that ALL risk has been explained, and the patient can cancel the procedure at any time regardless of consent! I have a real problem with this attitude. According to this interpretation of the law, anything goes as long as we can get that patient into the OR. So the patient really doesn't have any rights do they?)