{
  "abstract": "In November last year, Buse and McKee reflected on the potential consequences of the Trump presidency on global health.1 US withdrawal from the World Health Organization and cuts to the US Agency for International Development, together with cuts to aid from the UK and Germany to fund defence, have created massive shortfalls in development and global health budgets.23 Given these destructive changes, WHO member states face tough decisions about which health issues to prioritise.45 When they consider how best to distribute the shockingly scarce resources for global health, it is vital that member states prioritise ethically and are not sidetracked by alternative, tempting, but morally dubious approaches to prioritisation.",
  "authors": [
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department of Politics, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK"
      ],
      "name": "James Pattison"
    },
    {
      "affiliations": [
        "Department of International Relations, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Acton, ACT, Australia"
      ],
      "name": "Luke Glanville"
    }
  ],
  "title": "Ethical prioritisation in the face of global health cuts",
  "uid": "074b241d-a528-5dcb-bab3-d4144cdc42a9"
}