Paying scant regard to any nascent sugar taxes, she goes on to say that a spoonful of sweet stuff helps the medicine go down.
In the case of the apology by Pharmac chief executive Sarah Fitt for unprofessional, unnecessary and arrogant emails she and others in her organisation sent to each other about broadcaster Rachel Smalley and cancer patients, we wonder how much sugar had to be swallowed to help along that act of contrition?
Certainly, what she and senior staff did required an apology.
The emails reflect a government agency which has become too smug, too aloof and appears to consider itself a legend in its own lunchtime.
But does saying sorry go far enough? Should someone’s head be on the block, to use that awful expression?
In fact, should Ms Fitt and board chairman Steve Maharey both be down the road for such egregious flouting of public service standards?
The words of Ms Fitt certainly read like an apology: "As the chief executive, I am ultimately responsible for leading and setting the tone for the organisation. I did not meet this expectation and deeply regret my actions."
This at least sounds apologetic and therefore not like the usual weasel-worded statement which basically suggests weakness on the part of the injured party by saying "sorry if you were offended".
So where is the Pharmac board in all this?
At its meeting on Friday, board members reportedly discussed with Ms Fitt how best to respond to the offending emails becoming public.
What is Ms Fitt and the board going to do about this state of affairs?
Apparently, the board approved her eight-point plan to "implement a series of actions to improve the culture of Pharmac and ensure we do not see a repeat of this".
The plan includes updating staff induction programmes, bringing in someone from outside to help the leadership team, and to increase the public release of information.
These are all worthwhile steps, although it is unclear just how much help Pharmac’s leaders need and will get.
But it does seem somewhat discordant that the chief executive who oversaw and participated in a culture and organisation desperately in need of change has now come up with a plan she will lead to make those changes. Many chief executives would have resigned in circumstances such as this for failing to lead by example.
In a healthy workplace, the boss needs to be someone with a strong moral compass who is unafraid of doing tasks they expect their employees to do, is human, unafraid of empathising and willing to admit when things are going wrong.
Once a distant, seemingly invincible and untouchable big cheese has shown they don’t walk the talk, they lose respect from the rest of us who recognise our shortcomings and our feet of clay.
There are still people calling for Ms Fitt’s resignation, although it now appears less likely than before the board meeting.
Among those who think she should go are well-respected haematologist Ruth Spearing, who is appalled at what the publicly released emails reveal about Pharmac and a "crude, jokey clique among senior staff, swapping childish, insulting remarks".
She believes such behaviour by a government agency leader must not be tolerated, as does the chairman of advocacy group Patient Voice Aotearoa, Malcolm Mulholland, who accused Pharmac of being "callous" to patients.
Such views are understandable and calls for Ms Fitt to step down have merit. But the question for the board and the public service is, would sacking Ms Fitt now achieve a better outcome for Pharmac? Or would it be better for her to stick around and lift the agency out of its torpor and tribulations? The incoming government will no doubt have its own views about Ms Fitt and Pharmac, and, if you listen to Act New Zealand, big changes could be ahead regardless.
