The VA scandal: A critical firing |

The VA scandal: A critical firing

The firing of Sharon Helman, who presided over falsified patient waiting lists and the deaths of at least 40 veterans awaiting treatment as director of the Phoenix VA Health Care System, is but one of many steps toward the thorough housecleaning needed to restore trust in the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Ms. Helman denied knowledge of the fake waiting lists and maintained she had found no link between them and veterans’ deaths just before being placed on administrative leave in May. Helman was paid more than $90,000 since. VA Secretary Bob McDonald says criminal investigations must finish before such firings. But in determining the fates of others who betrayed the VA’s sacred mission, he must minimize such insults to taxpayers, which add to the injuries done to veterans and their families.

The American Legion’s national commander told The Washington Times that “additional consequences” beyond firings must be imposed where warranted, including criminal charges. Nor can the VA afford to leave any scandalous stone unturned. As retired Phoenix VA whistle-blower Dr. Samuel Foote told The Associated Press, “I think there are a lot of others who need to follow (Helman) out the door.”

Helman’s firing must be just one step in a dramatic top-to-bottom VA overhaul. And only when veterans and their families can trust the VA again will that overhaul be complete.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.