While we're on the subject of devaluing things could I point out the mistake of over-using the word "hero" in this context too.
A "hero" is someone who does something exceptional above and beyond the expectation of his duty usually involving great courage and/or danger and without regard to his own safety. This is a very specific definition and cannot, and should not be used to describe people who merely did their duty. It also cannot be automatically applied to someone simply because they were wounded or died.
afaik the chap involved did nothing outstandingly remarkable during the operation - "just" his duty, as did every other man-jack present so unless this appellation is for another incident we shouldn't, with all respect, refer to him or any other person who simply did their duty as a "hero".
This especially applies to the hideously misnamed charity that is so popular at present. We should not dilute such an important term by automatically and unthinkingly applying it to ordinary serving personnel who just did their job. That is neither what a "hero" is, nor what "hero" means.