Hospital food was dissected and debated in the wake of an article that revealed cutbacks were proposed for this institutional nourishment. It said: "nutrition experts had warned a government cost-cutting team that patients could suffer malnutrition under plans for cheaper hospital food." Such plans "would reduce the amount of protein in meals, cut back on hot food ... and use lesser-quality ingredients" - all of which is a bit of a concern because some of the existing food doesn't look all that flash.
Photographs accompanying the article showed that the quality of hospital meals can vary markedly. One shot pictured an unappetising red pasta dish and an unidentifiable grey soup. Another showed an unappealing crumbed fish with mashed potato. But the roast meal in the third shot with colourful vegetables and a generous dollop of gravy looked positively delicious in comparison. It's a worry if the proposed cost-cutting means meals will have more in common with the first two shots than the last one.
One talkback radio caller wondered why hospitals even needed to feed people. The reasoning was that patients are at a state hospital to receive free healthcare: why should they also get free meals? It was an interesting idea. Obviously anyone who is unable to arrange their own meals or anyone who is already dependent on the state for life's necessities should continue to be supplied with meals in hospital. But the people with the means to continue to take responsibility for their own nutritional requirements should be encouraged to do so. They could have meals delivered by loved ones or by boutique businesses that would spring up in the presence of such demand.
On the surface it seems like a workable suggestion. Those who need sustenance via the state get it. Those with the means (and desire) to access alternatives are free to do so.
And just think of the cost savings involved if the number of state-supplied meals was dramatically reduced. Talk about governmental budget slashing.