The concept of “repairing a coagulopathy” is a comforting illusion. No one looks forward to inserting a central venous line in a frail patient with an activated partial thromboplastin time greater than assay or an international normalized ratio (INR) of 10 or 12. Our “gut reaction” is to “fix” any abnormal laboratory value prior to placing a central venous line. Therefore, at first glance, the “con” position is counterintuitive and goes against the grain of many established cultural practices and reflexive responses in the hospital setting. These traditions have evolved with the good intention of following two wise mottos: (1) “safety first,” and (2) “primum non nocere.” Nevertheless, upon closer inspection, it turns out that the “cure” of a laboratory-diagnosed coagulopathy is usually elusive. The coagulopathy is usually a manifestation of the underlying disease that required hospitalization. The attempt to “repair” a laboratory-diagnosed coagulopathy can do more harm than the laboratory abnormality itself. That is why I am taking the “con” position in this debate, even though I anticipate that explaining my position will require swimming against the tide.