It is a double privilege to be invited first to present a plenary address and then to respond to five distinguished and thoughtful discussants. They each agree that the topic is important, and in general they agree with my thoughts about it, though with several important elaborations, explanations, and amendments. My response will be highly selective and will focus on their additions and some possible points of difference among us.

Imre Szecsödy and David Tuckett write from the greatest geographic distance and emphasize the broadest context of my remarks. Szecsödy speaks of the purpose of case reports as “opening windows on the analytic process” and quotes with approval the IPA committee that warned that “unless we make some wise decisions, psychoanalysis will be dead—at least as a therapeutic approach.” He shares