DR. MOSES HAS CAST A SKEPTICAL eye on the concept of empathy, showing through explication and clinical example how overburdened it is with ambiguous alternative meanings. He questions whether the concept is useful if it covers so much ground. He has especially sharp words for the sentimentality and resulting patronizing attitude which can creep into the use—that is, the misuse—of empathy, blocking analyses of the patient's character problems and obscuring transference and countertransference. Empathy, says Dr. Moses, is all too often employed credulously. There is too little respect for the ease with which inaccuracies take root in this kind of experience. Inaccuracy can be the result of defensiveness on the part of the analyst, or perhaps the analyst's permature need to know. Dr. Moses concludes that "the accuracy and effectiveness … of empathy can never be more than an assumption. …" I appreciate this paper, because as sensible as these views are, they are neither popular nor frequently aired. Finding myself in agreement, I want to extend the points Dr. Moses has