The start of therapy is often accompanied by anxiety, but its ending can evoke feelings just as complex as those of the first session. When we feel it’s time to end therapy—is this a sign of readiness to move forward on our own, or is it the mind’s attempt to avoid painful topics? How can we distinguish lasting change from “escaping” into resistance? Is it possible to “offend” a therapist by wanting to leave, and why is the final session important? Together with the psychologists at Treatfield, we explore the stage of ending therapy as an important part of the journey toward autonomy and maturity.
How can a client bring themselves to end therapy when so many conflicting feelings arise—the fear of not being able to cope without support, or the fear of “offending the therapist” by leaving him or her?
For me, this question is not just about ending therapy. It is much broader—it concerns how a person generally ends relationships in their life. After all, the way a client says goodbye to a therapist often reflects or highlights a familiar pattern.
As a Gestalt therapist, I am particularly interested in what exactly comes to life in the client’s inner world at this moment, what experiences surface, and how they manifest in the contact between us, here and now, literally one step away from completion.
It seems this is the point where opposing impulses coexist: the desire to move forward and the need to maintain the connection. This is a place of separation and assimilation.
And instead of helping the client “make up their mind,” it may be more valuable to help them notice exactly how they are hesitating, to make space for this ambivalence, to explore these conflicting feelings together, to help the person form an experience of completion not as a severing of connection, but as a step toward greater maturity, independence, and inner resilience.
It would be important for me to explore directly in the session how the client experiences the very idea of ending. What does he or she imagine about the therapist at this moment? Where does the fantasy of “being hurt” or “abandoned” come from? Is this an experience they recognize from other relationships?
After all, the end of therapy is not about losing a connection. It is about the person having grown strong enough to separate and take with them everything valuable that was created in the process, to carry it into their life, and to continue moving forward, now relying on themselves.
At the same time, long-standing feelings may resurface at this moment, especially those related to attachment trauma or difficult experiences of breakups in the past.
For example, the fear of “not being able to cope without support” often indicates that the sense of one’s own self-reliance has not yet been fully internalized. Here, it may be helpful to explore with the client where and how they are already managing, what they rely on outside of therapy, and what they can take away from this experience. This is a kind of resource inventory—a careful review of what is already present and a gradual shift in focus from external support to internal support.
You can also pay attention to whether the therapist’s voice has become the client’s inner voice. If the person is already able to support themselves in the same way the therapist used to, it means that the support isn’t disappearing; it’s simply changing form.
If the client feels a need for autonomy but is not ready for an abrupt ending, the process can be concluded gradually. For example, by changing the frequency of sessions—meeting once every two weeks at first, then once a month. This format allows for a gentle transition through the process of distancing and provides the opportunity to confirm through personal experience that there is already sufficient support.
As for the fear of “offending or abandoning the therapist,” this resembles a classic manifestation of defense mechanisms, such as projection or transference. The client may attribute their own feelings and reactions to the therapist, or be reliving a past experience where their separation was perceived by someone in their life as one in which they “abandoned and offended.”
It is important to determine whether this is a projection of the client’s own feelings onto the therapist—and if so, to help the client distinguish the projection from reality and see the therapist as a steadfast figure whose job is to be there as long as needed and to let go when the time comes. The end of therapy does not offend the therapist but is the result of successful collaborative work. Yes, it may evoke sadness in the therapist about the end of the relationship, but not resentment or a sense of abandonment.
If this reaction stems from the client’s past experiences, it is worth exploring which specific past relationship it echoes—who was the person “you couldn’t leave.” And gradually, the difference becomes clear: the therapist is a different figure, with different reactions and feelings.
Here, a space may open up for an experience different from the past or the familiar—one in which closure is possible without destruction and without guilt.
Finally, for the client to conclude this relationship and this gestalt, it is important to assimilate the experience and articulate what was valuable in therapy and what was not, what the client brought to therapy and what they are leaving with, and whether anything remains unfinished or unspoken in this relationship. This may take more than one session, and that is normal. Such a summary helps assimilate the experience and make this conclusion part of internal changes. When this process is lived through attentively and carefully, the decision to conclude becomes less anxiety-provoking and more conscious.
It is very important that the conclusion of therapy takes place gently and in a way that supports the client’s well-being, because the way a person is able to conclude this contact with the therapist will become their new experience and a model for how they might conclude other relationships or stages of their life—more gently and with a sense of self-reliance.
How do you determine when therapy can (or even should) be concluded? Are there objective markers of a client’s “readiness”?
In many works of fiction, the title of a book hints at the content and resolution of the story. In a certain sense, an analogy can be drawn here with analytical work. Often, the request a person brings already contains within itself the potential form of the work’s development, its duration, and the conclusion of the analytical process. The initial theme of the work can determine the nature of the analytical process, its depth, duration, and the direction of change.
When discussing completion in Jungian analysis, it is worth paying attention to the understanding of the analytical process in analytical psychology. Analytic work is typically long-term in nature, as profound psychological changes require time, patience, and the ability to endure internal tension. Therefore, the topic of the conclusion of analysis does not occupy a central place in Jungian theory, but at the same time, it can reflect profound internal changes. One should think of the conclusion of analysis not as a formal “end point of therapy,” but rather as a specific stage in the process of individuation, which is the goal of analytical work. That is, the end of work with an analyst is not synonymous with the completion of the inner psychological process.
Analysis does not have a clearly defined end point, so the process of individuation continues throughout a person’s entire life. Jung wrote that the goal of analysis is not so much the elimination of symptoms as the establishment of a relationship between the conscious and the unconscious. And one of the signs of the completion of the analytical work between the analyst and the client is an established connection between the conscious and the unconscious, which will continue to function even after the analytical work is completed. At the beginning of the work, the analyst acts as a mediator between the client’s consciousness and their unconscious contents. The analyst helps the client recognize symbols, make sense of dreams, and cope with the intensity of their experiences. Gradually, this function is internalized, and the client becomes capable of independently establishing contact with their own inner world. The ability to understand the symbolic language of dreams, reflect on internal processes, and cope with the intensity of experiences emerges.
It is also important to consider other aspects of the analytical work in the context of completion. As mentioned, the goal of analysis is no longer the elimination of symptoms or conflicts. On the contrary, mental health is largely linked to a person’s ability to contain and become aware of the contradictions within their psyche. Work with transference plays a significant role in the process of concluding analysis. As the analytic relationship develops, projections are gradually recognized and transformed, and emotional dependence on the analyst diminishes. The transformation of transference is accompanied by the strengthening of the ego, which becomes more resilient and capable of withstanding internal tension. In the process of establishing a connection between the conscious and the unconscious, the capacity for internal dialogue emerges. The ego becomes more resilient, so one can speak of the possibility of concluding the analytical work. This does not mean the cessation of psychological development, but rather indicates the emergence of greater inner autonomy. In summary, we can say that the process of individuation continues, but work with the analyst may come to an end. The conclusion of analysis can be viewed as the beginning of an independent path.
What does the final stage of therapy look like in your approach: is it a single final session, several sessions, or a gradual reduction in the frequency of sessions? Is it worth leaving open the possibility of occasional meetings in the future for situational support?
Many clients do not complete therapy but simply fade away from it: first they reschedule sessions, then they skip them, and then they simply do not return. And often this happens not because “everything is over,” but because it becomes too difficult to conclude the contact. In the Gestalt approach, therapy is a contact between two people, not just work on symptoms. This contact is alive, changing, and sometimes difficult. Therefore, the conclusion of therapy is not a technical finale, but an important part of this contact. And it is precisely in the conclusion that one often sees how a person generally breaks off or concludes relationships in their life.
Ecological closure is a process in which the client has the opportunity to pause and look back:
- notice that therapy is coming to an end;
- experience the feelings associated with this (sadness, gratitude, anxiety, anger);
- see the path traveled and internalize the changes;
- assimilate the experience gained, that is, integrate it so that it becomes part of their inner life, rather than simply “what happened in therapy.”
Conclusion does not happen in a single moment, but “matures.” Sometimes it is a feeling of “I can handle this on my own.” Sometimes—on the contrary—it’s increased anxiety and a desire to keep the therapy going. Sometimes—irritation or devaluation of the process. And all of this is part of the work.
Shame holds a special place here. Many clients feel ashamed to end therapy. It’s embarrassing to say: “I’ve had enough,” “I want to stop,” “it doesn’t resonate with me anymore.” Behind this lie thoughts like: “I’m betraying the therapist,” “I haven’t worked hard enough,” “I have to keep going,” “if I leave, there’s something wrong with me.” Shame makes ending therapy almost impossible, and because of this shame, avoidance may arise: postponement, skipping sessions, or gradually fading away. Because it’s too vulnerable to say it directly.
There’s another important point. The desire to end therapy doesn’t always mean it’s truly over. Sometimes it’s part of resistance. When a person approaches something significant—pain, anger, vulnerability, new choices—an impulse may arise: “enough,” “I don’t need this,” “I’ve already understood everything.” This is the psyche’s natural way of protecting itself. And here it’s important not to rush, but to ask: is this about completion—or about avoidance? In the Gestalt approach, we don’t hold onto the client at any cost. Instead, we suggest exploring this moment together. Because behind the desire to leave may lie fear, anger, vulnerability—or that very same shame. And if this becomes visible and spoken, the person has a choice not to disappear, but to bring things to a close.
By “ecological closure,” we do not mean simply “saying a nice goodbye,” but rather a complete gestalt. An experience in which a person can say, “It was hard for me to talk about this,” “I’m ashamed to end it,” “I just wanted to disappear”—and still remain in contact. And it is precisely at this moment that something very important happens. A new experience emerges: being in relationships, taking what is valuable from them, assimilating the experience, and concluding them without breaking down or disappearing. And this experience extends far beyond the boundaries of therapy. It begins to live in real relationships. And perhaps that is why conclusion is not the end of therapy. It is the moment when it truly begins to work in life.
Sometimes a client wants to end therapy just when the work touches on difficult topics. How can a client distinguish a healthy desire to end therapy from resistance or “escape”? Why might abruptly leaving therapy be harmful to the client (if that is the case)?
The key point here is how the client deals with their desire to end therapy. There is indeed a very fine line—one that becomes almost invisible—between a genuine outcome and resistance, that is, a defense mechanism against the difficulty of enduring the process. The reason for the desire to end therapy may be either the completely understandable resolution of a specific issue the client brought up, the realization that the therapist’s approach or style does not suit the client, the objective inability to devote energy to therapy due to going through an important life phase (e.g., going on maternity leave, moving, serious illness, etc.), — or resistance stemming from the client not feeling heard or accepted, or having questions about themselves related to intense emotions (most often pain, fear, shame, or anger) that cannot be shared with the therapist or the therapeutic group. This is where avoidance arises as a defense mechanism and a desire to interrupt the unpleasant process.Why is it important to bring things to a close, especially for people who have experienced repeated ghosting in their lives (unpredictable disappearance from a relationship—any kind, not necessarily romantic)? The fact is that the human brain remembers unfinished processes much better than finalized ones (this is described in more detail by Zeigarnik’s law). And all situations from which a person “flew out” without drawing a line will linger in the background, draining strength and mental energy. A vivid metaphor for this process can be found in scenes from ghost movies, where ghosts cannot leave this world until they finish their important business on earth; they wander, scare others, seek help, and at some point become capricious and angry. No one sees them, but everyone encounters the consequences of their actions. Similarly, in the psyche, the “ghosts” of unfinished business wander and drain strength and energy in the search for a way to complete what was once started; and when they cannot find these opportunities, they become toxic to the person.
Resistance to therapy, or rather to the emotions clients face, can manifest in the following ways:
- if a person has experienced a sudden withdrawal from a relationship, especially without explanation, and the same desire arises during therapy;
- if the desire to discontinue therapy arises suddenly;
- if interest in the process wanes more and more frequently, and dismissive thoughts arise such as “what’s the point of all this?”, “therapy doesn’t work”, “what’s there to talk about anyway?”, “why does this chatter cost so much—I can just as easily talk to a friend/mom/partner, but for free”
- or there is a reluctance to attend sessions, you forget about appointments, arrive late, or run out of money to pay;
- another sign of resistance can be the polar opposite feeling that everything is so good that there’s nowhere left to go.
Any of these issues is worth discussing with a therapist. And yes, this is a place of risk and, at the same time, an opportunity for significant change. Consciously engaging with the process restores a sense of control and security over one’s own life—a sense of agency, where a person becomes the author of their own actions and decisions, and life no longer “just happens” but becomes a more regulated process.
Completion releases energy; there is no longer a need to dwell on how things turned out or how they could have been better—the process is now complete. Leaving a relationship is always accompanied by grief over what is no longer possible, what has already happened, and what will never happen; it is a space for reflection, for making sense of the experience, and for structuring chaotic elements into a concrete outcome. So, if you feel the desire to end therapy, take care of yourself and schedule a final session; then you’ll see: perhaps your greatest transformation lies beyond this stage.
