Share This Page

The Veterans Affairs/Legionella mess: It grows & grows ...

| Monday, June 17, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Just when you thought the Legionella scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs' hospitals in Pittsburgh couldn't get any worse, it explodes.

As the Trib reported on Sunday, the bacteria that can lead to Legionnaires' disease were running rampant at the VA's hospital in Oakland five years before officials publicly confirmed a deadly outbreak in November 2012. In fact, Legionella bacteria levels were so high between September 2007 and November 2011 that at least 30 percent of faucets, shower heads and public water fountains tested positive for the bacteria. Shockingly, a Sept. 21, 2007, report shows Legionella in 17 of 19 samples taken from surgical and medical intensive-care units.

What's yet to be determined is if any additional patients were sickened or died. Twenty-one veterans fell ill in the publicly disclosed outbreak, five of whom died. Thirty years ago, another outbreak sickened 100 veterans, about 30 of whom died.

And as per usual, Veterans Affairs has clammed up. It took a Freedom of Information Act filing to shake loose the VA's dirty big secrets. The agency already under fire for its previous nondisclosures is the subject of investigations by the VA inspector general, a congressional subcommittee and the Justice Department. These new revelations necessarily will increase federal scrutiny.

Sadly and tragically, the latest developments only reinforce the notion that those charged with protecting our veterans have been threatening them the most.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.