You are arguing there is uniform usage throughout the medical profession, but can barely come up with two sources with identical definitions of the term. Language is far too subtle and nuanced for your conclusions, far too dynamic, far too contextual, far too idiosyncratic. You will never find robotic conformity to a speech code in any profession or community.
Every sample I posted said the same thing - that a patient is oriented if they know person, place and time. Otherwise they are not oriented. This is standard stuff, used all over the country. I fear you are making yourself look silly arguing about this, as any nurse or doctor will tell you what the medical meaning of "oriented" is. Is there a doc on Free Republic you trust? Ping them to the thread and ask.
Look at the dozen or so definitions you and kosokey have referenced that refer to person, place and time. In reality, what nurses are taught is to refer in chart notation on orientation as "oriented X 1, 2, or 3." You should have pointed out to people in this thread that this would be the normal thought and reference of any trained nurse, with the number referring to "self, place, and time." Surely you know that patients may be "oriented" in any combination of these parameters. In the interests of medical accuracy, you should have said so. You know perfectly well a nurse such as Iyer may very well refer to a patient as being "oriented" and mean a simple "oriented X 1." Certainly her observations would support that assessment. Keep in mind also, she was writing to be understood by a general reader, not writing in a chart or addressing a medical audience. There is no call to jump all over her for using one word -- a word easily understood by a lay audience and accurate for her first-hand experience.