ABSTRACT
A good starting point for discussing termination is “Analysis Terminable and Interminable” (Freud, 1937), written 2 years before the author’s death at the age of 82. But as Pedder (1988) points out, the English title could more accurately have been translated as “Analysis Finite or In‰nite.” The very different linguistic harmonics of that road not taken might have steered therapists away from the abortive or guillotine-like implications of termination, and the irritable connotation of interminability, suggesting instead themes of separation, death, a timeless unconscious, and the in‰nity of irreversible loss.*
The questions surrounding termination are fairly simple, even if the answers are less so. When should one end-is it up to the analyst, the patient, or when an agreed ‰xed term is up? How should one end-abruptly, or with a gradual winding down of frequency of sessions? Are follow-up and “top-ups” allowable? Why should one end-what is the theoretical justi‰cation for an ending, how does one know that the job is done, and how does a decision to end emerge? In what way can one discern if an ending is good enough (analogous to a “good death” in the hospice literature), premature (as in the Dora case; Freud, 1907), or overdue (as with the Wolf Man; Freud, 1918)?
