This article has the intention of giving impulses to a hopefully more creative and open-minded discussion of the function of training analysis and the kind of training model we seem to take for granted in the Scandinavian countries, the Eitingon model. I will consider some historical background data on this model as well as some historical data on the development in France which have created an alternative model of training. Especially in Sweden, there has been a stormy debate during the last years about the training analyst functions and some members have actually decided to leave our association because of this. I would like to try to shift focus from just a ‘yes-or-no-perspective’? to a broader question of our psychoanalytical society’s purpose and structure and how the training-model could sustain it.