Connecticut has stepped up various programs for military veterans since the return of so many from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recognition of what they sacrificed on behalf of the rest of us, veterans are getting increased options in various housing and jobs programs, college admissions and medical care. It's only right.

But there is one the state is doing, in the interest of protecting the privacy of long-dead veterans, which may hinder the ability to help today's veterans. Connecticut will not release medical records of deceased veterans of earlier wars who struggled with the condition now called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, despite arguments that information on their illness and treatment could help those now suffering from PTSD.

Known in World War II as combat fatigue, and in World War I as shell shock, PTSD by other names goes even further back. In the bloodbath of the Civil War, it was known as "soldier's heart," and returning veterans who suffered from its effects were often treated at Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown. The past has its lessons to teach, but not if those lessons are locked away.

A group of historians, the state archivist and advocates for Freedom of Information, have been attempting for years to convince the General Assembly to follow the lead of the National Archives, which opens historical records 75 years after death. This year the measure, which would have opened medical records at state hospitals after 50 years, got the furthest it ever has, making it out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, chaired by outgoing Rep. Ed. Jutila, D-East Lyme, with a favorable report.

That's as far as it got, however. Half-century-old governmental medical records remain closed to research ever since the passage of privacy legislation in a so-called implementer bill − the kind that receive no debate − in 2011.

The legitimate concerns of mental health advocates for the privacy of patients deserve to be part of the discussion, of course. And perhaps 50 years after the death of the individual is not long enough for the comfort of surviving family members. There is room for compromise. But there is no reason to dither endlessly about an action that could help the living without harming the dead.

The next General Assembly session ought to have this on its agenda for a vote.