Carl Rogers has become a legendary personage in the mental health field. Rogers (1957) "has been cited in the literature over a thousand times, in professional writings originating in 36 countries" (Goldfried, 2007, p. 249). Clinicians in the behavioral health field (psychiatry, social work, counseling and psychology) are exposed to his teachings about human behavior. Of all the ideas propagated by Rogers, the concept of unconditional positive regard (UPR) has been elevated to the level of a doctrine (Schmitt, 1980). What then is unconditional positive regard? How can clinicians be faithful to the demands of unconditional positive regard in the face of other competing realities such as threat of suicide or terrorism? This paper seeks to discuss the impossible nature of Rogers' UPR, highlighting its inherent linguistic contradiction. Since psychotherapy is culturally normative, the doctrine of unconditional positive regard negates this fundamental principle. In this article, the author takes a critical look at the influence of American philosophy of education on Rogers -he was a product of his culture. Furthermore, this paper asserts that clinicians are guided by societal norms or "conditions" which regulate clinical practice, including unconditional positive regard (Gone, 2011).

Choice theory has been used as an effective approach in the assessment and treatment of human behavior. It is particularly deployed in cases involving the clinical care of patients who may have chronic co-morbid conditions [1,2]. Although choice theory explores how the personal choices of patients impact their health outcome, there are certain contexts in which health status cannot be simply attributed to maladaptive behaviors [1]. This claim may seem counterintuitive to the basic tenets of the behavioral health enterprise, but a case can be made regarding how a patient's social economic status may predispose him/her to unwanted or unwarranted cycle of poor health status. In this article, the author examines the issue of poverty as a significant predictor of health status. By carefully reviewing relevant literature on the social economic status of African American residents of Flint, Michigan, publically available data suggests a correlation between poverty and the health status of this minority population. Given that a patient's economic means determine where he/she may reside, it is not enough to attribute related health disparities to the question of personal choices. The victims of the lead poisoning in Flint did not choose their health status. They were simply relegated to a potentially hazardous environment, which had direct implications for their health status.