With the exception of the Hippocratic Oath content, little support can be found to justify my colleagues’ arguments. When a molecule is readily available in many forms, has been used for decades and has clinical benefits, has pharmacokinetic properties and side effects that are well understood, and is the least expensive sedative available on the market, it behooves the critical care physician to consider its use. If benzodiazepines are used in studies describing lorazepam infusions or intermittent lorazepam administration in patients who are critically ill that do not take into account the half-life of lorazepam and its comparator drugs, such as dexmedetomidine or propofol, what should one conclude? Clearly, addressing the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the drug is preferable to stating that lorazepam is a poor choice of medication.4 If two characteristics, wakefulness and greater sedation, characterize two molecules (for instance, wakeful sedation with dexmedetomidine and more somnolent sedative effect with lorazepam) and if the more sedating benzodiazepines are predictably associated with more somnolence, which may be misinterpreted as being delirium,5 this does not make the choice of benzodiazepines an antiquated or a dangerous one. Thoughtfulness and knowledge, here particularly with regard to pharmacokinetics and drug interactions, can make a physician choose a molecule such as a benzodiazepine, assuming a thorough understanding of its effects and metabolism.