It seemed to me that there was a series of related, possible drawbacks:

1. The more money that is given by the government to the hospices, the more the government will want to dictate how the money is spent, the nature of the care, the nature (and cost) of the training and how teh care is delivered. The more money given, the more the independence of the hospices could be undermined.

2. In consequence the morale of those within the hospice movement could be undermined. We have already seen how the morale of doctors and nurses in the NHS has been damaged. It would be a pity for the same to happen to those working in the hospice movement.

3. At present, those working in the hospice movement are universally admired and respected. They receive esteem which, I think it is fair to say, is greater than that received by those working in the NHS. They receive it partly because their work requires great qualities of character - patience, outstanding bravery and sensitivity for example. But they also receive admiration because people somehow understand that those working in hospices are working largely as an act of philanthropy. They are not just doing a job. These are charity workers with a powerful philanthropic drive.
The more the state may come to fund and dominate hospices, the more this huge respect could be endangered.

4. The more the government comes to dominate, the worse the service is likely to become. At present I suspect it is terrific. But if the government were in the driving seat, the same might happen to the quality of care as has happened to the quality of medical and social care in the NHS.

5. The more money given by the government, the less that charitable donors are likely to be willing to give. People like to feel, when they are giving money, that they are filling a vitally important human need. They don't like to feel they are just helping the government with its finances. The more the government is involved, the more people will feel the hospices are just part of government spending.

6. At first, the amount of care provided by hospices would probably be sustained or even improved by the deployment of government money. But we have already seen in other areas of the NHS that provision is at first increased only to be decreased later. This has happened in the provision of GP services, for example. Care for the elderly in their own home and provided by government falls well short of what is needed after much was promised. The number of care home places has actually fallen at a time when the number of elderly has increased. The same kind of thing could happen to the hospice movement.

A member of the audience who works professionally in this area of 'palliative care' said that the discussion about financing was about to become obsolete because the government was in the process of deciding, through its agency NICE, that hospice care is something that the NHS should finance. So it would become entirely a matter of government finance. I don't know how much truth there may be to what he suggested. It seemed to be news to the Tory spokesman on the subject.

In any case, I fear that the hospice movement - as an independent, excellent, admired charitable movement - may be under threat.

For the time being, however, I suspect it remains mostly funded by charitable donations and the hospices are, I expect, among the most worthwhile of charities to support.