Ease: diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco (WHO, 2005). Yet, while the proportion of people GS-9620MedChemExpress GS-9620 living in poverty may have fallen (United Nations, 2013), rates of both inequality and, perhaps even more importantly, inequity, within many countries is accelerating (OECD, 2011). This means that while advances in medical science remain essential to reducing mortality and morbidity, there is also an absolute imperative for `economic and social policies that would improve basic living conditions’ for all household members in LMICs (Benatar et al., 2003, p. 110). Moreover, it must also be acknowledged that while PD98059 custom synthesis urbanisation creates new behavioural risks for those living in cities, in many LMICs, it also produces a profound care gap in which older family members are left in rural areas without either adequate health infrastructure or family networks to care for them in times of illness (Livingston, 2003). These transitions, in turn, test the capacity of the state just as much as the current machinery of global health. With its overwhelming focus on single diseases and technocratic solutions, global health does offer a model of care, but it is one that can often be problematically short-lived and partial (Garrett, 2007). It can also be outcomes rather than process-orientated. This raises the question of the type of care global health endeavours to provide and for whom. Indeed, the degree to which the mechanisms of global health penetrate broader social structures and, as a result, the determinants of health, is a question that is infrequently asked and nowhere near being solved. Under conditions where global health activities have supplanted the responsibilities of the state, there is the danger that this may start to precipitate `a striking culture of indifference to affliction present in areas of extreme inequality’, which, in turn, `facilitates a pathogenic biosocial spiral of socioeconomic exclusion and deteriorating health’ (Nguyen and Peschard, 2003, 448; see also Farmer, 2005; Quesada et al., 2011). Thus, while many countries of the global South have witnessed meteoric climbs in their middle classes, the gulf between rich and poor has only widened. Across the global South, there are also mounting inequities between state and private healthcare provision, the distribution of essential medical technologies, drugs and expertise as medical professionals seek employment in the global North, the cities of Asia and the Gulf (Mills et al., 2011; Parry et al., 2015). This necessarily means a situation where `the rich, although increasingly shielded from most disease threats, are able to purchase better health’ (Nguyen and Peschard, 2003, 449) and may actually only rarely come into direct contact with global health programmes. Moreover, when the richest can access healthcare elsewhere, this does little to either inculcate a broader ethic of care or to bolster support for efforts to address the wider social determinants of health (Hall, 2011). As aresult, social justice and human rights remain a persistent absence in the politics of NCDs in the global South. This absence is further reinforced by the fracturing of the social solidarities that have traditionally underpinned an ethic of care in the face of global change. This in turn reveals a further, painful irony at work in efforts to tackle NCDs in the global South. NCDs require not only the care of others, but also necessitate care of the self, especially in relation to the four major lifestyle risk f.Ease: diet, exercise, alcohol and tobacco (WHO, 2005). Yet, while the proportion of people living in poverty may have fallen (United Nations, 2013), rates of both inequality and, perhaps even more importantly, inequity, within many countries is accelerating (OECD, 2011). This means that while advances in medical science remain essential to reducing mortality and morbidity, there is also an absolute imperative for `economic and social policies that would improve basic living conditions’ for all household members in LMICs (Benatar et al., 2003, p. 110). Moreover, it must also be acknowledged that while urbanisation creates new behavioural risks for those living in cities, in many LMICs, it also produces a profound care gap in which older family members are left in rural areas without either adequate health infrastructure or family networks to care for them in times of illness (Livingston, 2003). These transitions, in turn, test the capacity of the state just as much as the current machinery of global health. With its overwhelming focus on single diseases and technocratic solutions, global health does offer a model of care, but it is one that can often be problematically short-lived and partial (Garrett, 2007). It can also be outcomes rather than process-orientated. This raises the question of the type of care global health endeavours to provide and for whom. Indeed, the degree to which the mechanisms of global health penetrate broader social structures and, as a result, the determinants of health, is a question that is infrequently asked and nowhere near being solved. Under conditions where global health activities have supplanted the responsibilities of the state, there is the danger that this may start to precipitate `a striking culture of indifference to affliction present in areas of extreme inequality’, which, in turn, `facilitates a pathogenic biosocial spiral of socioeconomic exclusion and deteriorating health’ (Nguyen and Peschard, 2003, 448; see also Farmer, 2005; Quesada et al., 2011). Thus, while many countries of the global South have witnessed meteoric climbs in their middle classes, the gulf between rich and poor has only widened. Across the global South, there are also mounting inequities between state and private healthcare provision, the distribution of essential medical technologies, drugs and expertise as medical professionals seek employment in the global North, the cities of Asia and the Gulf (Mills et al., 2011; Parry et al., 2015). This necessarily means a situation where `the rich, although increasingly shielded from most disease threats, are able to purchase better health’ (Nguyen and Peschard, 2003, 449) and may actually only rarely come into direct contact with global health programmes. Moreover, when the richest can access healthcare elsewhere, this does little to either inculcate a broader ethic of care or to bolster support for efforts to address the wider social determinants of health (Hall, 2011). As aresult, social justice and human rights remain a persistent absence in the politics of NCDs in the global South. This absence is further reinforced by the fracturing of the social solidarities that have traditionally underpinned an ethic of care in the face of global change. This in turn reveals a further, painful irony at work in efforts to tackle NCDs in the global South. NCDs require not only the care of others, but also necessitate care of the self, especially in relation to the four major lifestyle risk f.