This commentary on Melanie Suchet’s “Impasse-able” acknowledges the success of the clinical work described, but is critical nevertheless of certain of the author’s assumptions which, it is argued, made the treatment more difficult than it had to be. Central in the criticism were two points: (1) Suchet seems to have confused a protective system created by her patient with a so-called pathological introjection deriving from severe child abuse; and (2) A Cartesian view of her patient as “psychotic” (out of contact with the externally real) haunts the clinical descriptions and appears to have hindered the therapeutic process for a long period. These difficulties notwithstanding, the therapy convincingly eventuates in a healing experience. This paper is an important contribution to the literature on impasses in psychotherapy.