ABSTRACT
There are two linked, but different procedures within the TA literature that directly address tragic script outcomes: escapehatch closure and no-harm contracts. The key difference between escape-hatch closure (even time-limited closure) and no-harm contracts is that an escape-hatch closure is by de®nition a decisional process, and is `taken by the client for him/herself, with the therapist as witness, and is inherently non-changeable (the unconditionality is part of the decision). A no-harm contract, like any other contract, is agreed between client and therapist and is changeable' (I. Stewart, 2008, personal communication). Escape-hatch closure is a process whereby the individual verbally makes a commitment to her/himself with the therapist acting as witness that no matter how bad things are, they will not kill or harm self, kill or harm others or go crazy (see Stewart 2007 for a full description of this process). Stewart asserts that escape-hatch closure has the potential to be therapeutic for all clients, although the process must be carried out at an appropriate time in the therapy, and not done `for the sake of it' without suf®cient preparation (Stewart, 2007).
