Furlong A
Int J Psychoanal. 1992 Winter;73 ( Pt 4):701-18.
Although Freud (1913b) originally proposed the 'principle of leasing a definite hour', there are many proponents of a more 'lenient' fee policy. The author critically examines some of the arguments put forward by the latter writers and argues that the missed session risks degrading into a 'missing' session if a financial marker does not remain in the patient's vacated place. The conflict mobilized in both partners to the therapeutic relationship by the missed session is best left open for analytic exploration rather than solved by a 'rational' and 'flexible' fee arrangement. The author suggests ways of theorizing, and eventually interpreting, the 'breach' in the relationship in terms of the absent, decentred subject, the Desire of the Other, the inherent contingency of our most primitive identifications, and the ineluctable violence and alienation of human interdependency. The 'rule of indenture' is seen in closer affinity to these basic contradictions than the more gracious 'gentlemen's agreement'.
尽管弗洛伊德（1913b）最初提出了“约定固定时间原则”，但有许多人支持更为“宽松”的收费政策。作者批判性地审视了后一类作者提出的一些论点，并认为如果经济标记物没有留在患者空出的位置上，错过的治疗时段有退化为“缺失”时段的风险。错过的治疗时段在治疗关系的双方中引发的冲突，最好留待精神分析探索，而不是通过“理性”和“灵活”的收费安排来解决。作者提出了一些理论化方法，并最终从缺席的、去中心化的主体、他者的欲望、我们最原始认同的内在偶然性，以及人类相互依存中不可避免的暴力和异化等方面，对关系中的“破裂”进行解释。与更为宽松的“君子协定”相比，“契约规则”与这些基本矛盾的联系更为紧密。
