The criteria for deciding the conclusion of an analytical treatment had been already discussed by Freud (1937) in Analysis terminable and interminable. In the intervening years as theoretical assumptions changed and with the new acquisitions in the area of infant research that puts the interaction of caregiver and child at the basis of a co-construction of the child’s personality, we were forced to rethink the question. This can be very helpful for a psychotherapist especially when analysis is interrupted. In fact, even if the experience of aborted treatments can make the analyst reflect afterwards on what happened during treatment, it is clear that this can cause a sense of discredit and inadequacy (Paradisi et al., 2015). For this reason it can be very important to provide a proper weight to the experience of interruption and early ending not only from the point of you of the relational matrix between patient and analyst (evaluating the elements that have negatively affected the development of the therapeutic relationship) but also to consider the areas of non-analyzability in the patient. In fact all patients have their own "bedrock" (Cooper, 1991) that is never accessible to psychoanalytical observation. This does not mean that this rock can never be approached but that patients can do it later in a further therapy or on their own. This will depend mainly on what the previous treatment has been able to obtain in activating a post-analytical phase in which they will continue to explore their mental and affective functioning. All this leads us to consider analysis as interminable since what will be unveiled in the treatment with the analyst is not as important as what has helped to activate a post-analytical phase that contributes to the patient’s ongoing self-analysis.
Keywords: Interminable analysis, interruption, self-analysis, change, analytical relationship, Infant research