Indian philosopher Amartya Sen, who developed the "capabilities approach" according to which an individual's freedom to achieve well-being is best interpreted by the capacities granted to it to achieve well-being. the life they want has been quoted as saying that “…human beings live and interact in societies and are societal creatures. It is not surprising that they cannot fully develop themselves without participating in political and social affairs and without being effectively involved in common decision-making. (Public Health, Ethics and Equity, 2004). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay This statement validates the importance of self-determination as it is an invaluable process for marginalized individuals to set their own goals and implement policies that benefit the community. target population and reverses the effects of colonial and destructive assimilation policies. Positive change occurs within the framework of self-determination and self-governance, restoring autonomy to affected indigenous populations and encouraging them to be innovators in problem-solving strategies within their communities. Speaking strictly in terms of health, the Marmot-Whitehall study is an excellent illustration of the benefits of self-determination in improving health outcomes. In this study, researchers looked at the hierarchy of the British civil service and attempted to determine how certain social classes affected mortality and morbidity. Researchers have found a correlation between higher status and better health outcomes. Michael Marmot attributed this relationship to autonomy and the level to which people feel in control of their lives, stating that "social injustice is disempowering." It robs people of control over their lives. In low-income countries, where people struggle to feed their children and lack access to clean water and sanitation, their powerlessness is material, as is the feeling of being at the mercy of independent forces of their will. (The Health Gap, 2015). Therefore, when individuals do not feel in control of their own destiny and livelihood, a positive correlation can be made with worse health. This relationship manifests itself with the Indigenous population who share minimal autonomy in Canada as a community, exhibiting the worst health outcomes across the board in the country. In the presence of positive self-determination and self-governance policies, communities feel in control of their future and their destiny. As a result, health outcomes improve depending on the degree of autonomy acquired, and areas that need to be specifically targeted and prioritized receive prominence that serves to improve health and socioeconomic outcomes more easily than a outsider trying to rationalize the changes the community needs to make. in order to benefit the target population. One of the greatest obstacles to Aboriginal self-determination in health matters can be attributed to general dishonesty on the part of the federal government. This history dates back to the implementation of Treaty 6 and the medicine chest clause, where the government exercised plausible deniability against Indigenous peoples, insisting that the spirit of the clause did not was not to offer free uninsured health services, ranging from dental care to pharmaceuticals. of thesupplies and access to traditional healers to indigenous peoples, but claiming they only needed to provide a literal medicine chest or first aid kit. This example of dishonesty is also reflected in today's society, where the federal government is reducing transfers of funds to First Nations health care facilities on reserves and Inuit health care in Canada's North. These policies were justified by the federal government as being the result of deficits. , and ensuring that the budget remains balanced, this apathetic attitude, however, comes at the expense of benefitsIndigenous self-government within their own facilities and health outcomes in general. This paradigm was eloquently explained in a book on Indigenous social determinants as follows: "...the current shared responsibility between the federal government and the province for the provision of health and social services to First Nations peoples Nations includes health services, education, social support and child welfare. Shared responsibility has not been a collaborative effort based on meeting client needs, but has instead given rise to jurisdictional ambiguity leading to inequitable access to required services – and, frequently, gaps or barriers in service. (Indigenous Child Health and Social Determinants, 2010). These policies come at the expense of Indigenous self-government because they widen the gap between obtaining health care in an urban setting and an Indigenous individual receiving treatment in a rural health facility. on-reserve, as the disparity in funding places on-reserve health facilities at a huge disadvantage in providing adequate health care. Underfunding affects self-determination because it creates a scenario in which only routine health care is provided, the resources provided cannot meet demand, and health personnel must make compromises to save costs that will against obtaining optimal health care. Another Path While the federal government has put itself in the driver's seat to determine who will get certain benefits, the problem with this program is that ".. . FNIHB limits its services to First Nations and Inuit peoples. which are registered with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and many of their programs are reserved for people living on reserves. As mentioned previously, Métis and non-status First Nations people are excluded from FNIHB health services, benefits and programs. (Social Determinants of Health: Canadian Perspectives, p. 454). The irony of eligibility for First Nations and Inuit Health Branch benefits is that this process, based on specific tailoring to the needs of Indigenous peoples, ultimately removes the option of applying to these benefits out of the hands of indigenous peoples and is decided. by an arbitrary third party of the government and certain groups of indigenous peoples are excluded from reaping the benefits. Michael Murphy, writing in the University of Toronto's Law Journal, attributed the old colonial Aboriginal policies that served to define who was considered an Aboriginal individual from a white perspective to a divide-and-conquer mentality on the part of the government and attributed it to a legacy of isolation that had always been established, stating that at that time, "alienation was more.