Listed here are the "hot potatoes" or controversial issues for community debate via the ISAR weekly NL and possibly in an Ethics column in TIA. Note that in some sections the Ethics Committee2 has begun discussion.

#1.

A.6.ADVERTISING AND SOLICITING

e. Promoting to Those Served (original Ethics code wording)

Astrologers do not use counseling, teaching, training, or supervisory relationships to promote their products, services, or training events in a manner that is deceptive or would exert undue influence on individuals who may be vulnerable. For example, they do not imply or make negative predictions and then encourage the client to purchase a product or service that is the alleged "cure" for the condition predicted. Astrologers may adopt textbooks they have authored for instruction purposes.

Some people feel that the Vedic astrology practice of recommending the purchase of gem stones or Yagas (having priests pray for clients undergoing bad times) is a violation of this guideline. Thus it is interesting to look at the ACVA's (American Council of Vedic Astrology) guidelines on such matters:

Western astrologers are also known to recommend aromatherapy treatments and even sell them directly to clients. Some argue that there is nothing wrong with making prescriptions for the relief of conditions found in the chart as long as the astrologer does not directly benefit from the sale or indirectly benefit through a referral fee. Others feel that a referral fee is fine as long as the client is informed of the referral arrangement.

The cost of the prescribed remedy may be an important consideration in assessing the ethics of a prescription. Many people could easily overlook the recommendation of a $9 Bach flower remedy, but would have grave concerns about an astrologer recommending the purchase of a gemstone ring costing thousands of dollars. Even if the astrologer sincerely believes that the gemstone would have great effect some would consider such a recommendation unethical unless lower cost alternatives like the reciting of Mantra were provided. We might add a sentence "When considering different remedies, consideration should be given to affordability, fit with the clients lifestyle and beliefs, possible unintended consequences, as well as which remedy is most likely to be effective. Low cost and free solutions should always be included among the alternative remedies."

It has been argued that medical doctors regularly prescribe treatments that patients can ill afford so why is it unethical for astrologers to do so. One side points out the fact that medicine does double blind tests for many of their treatment options. The other side points to several expensive medical treatment options like mastectomies, vertebrae fusion, and HRT that continue despite controversy over their effectiveness. One possible means of dealing with people?s objections to astrologer prescriptions is to ask astrologers to include a disclaimer with their prescriptions. The disclaimer might say something like this: From your chart I can see a need for _____. This recommendation comes from astrological tradition and anecdotal evidence with my clients. It does not come from a scientific study. I offer this recommendation as my best advise from my training. I urge you to consider whether it feels right to you and to consult other professionals that you might consider important. Astrologers might even want to have this printed on a prescription form that they and their clients sign. This might protect the astrologer from future lawsuits for things like practicing medicine without a license. We might want to have a lawyer look at this as well.

c. Doctoral Degrees from Other Fields (original Ethics Code wording)

Astrologers who hold a masters or doctoral degree in a field other than astrology, counseling or a closely related field such as philosophy or religion, do not use the title "Dr." in their practices and do not announce to the public in relation to their status as an astrologer that they hold a masters or doctorate.

c. Doctoral Degrees from Other Fields (suggested by first Ethics committee)

Astrologers who hold a doctoral degree in a field other than astrology identify the area of their expertise.

c. Doctoral Degrees from Other Fields (EC2's suggestion)

Astrologers who hold a doctoral degree in a field other than astrology identify the area of their expertise in biographical materials.

EC2 feels that our new version addresses Glenn's concern about being clear when one must identify in what field the PhD was earned. It is also clearer than the original version, which left it up to the reader to determine which fields were related. In our opinion, a PhD signals quality of scholarship - no matter what the field. We presume that quality of thinking is transferable and thus helpful in choosing an astrologer.

In our view Glenn's argument for restricting use of graduate credentials is applicable to a regulated profession, but not to astrology as it currently stands, or how it will stand in the foreseeable future. We need to keep in mind that we are an international organization and graduate degrees will mean different things from different countries. We are also unwilling to privilege counseling as the most related field, given that astrology spans a number of disciplines including business, economics, nutrition, and medicine. Astrology also encompasses teaching, research, and publishing in addition to counseling. We believe that given the flaky status of astrology in the mainstream community, using advanced degrees on business cards, etc. is useful in conveying a general image of respectability and competence.

In order to get a broader perspective on this issue, we vote to engage the community in discussion.

#3.

A.10. SEXUAL INTIMACIES WITH CLIENTS

a. Current or Former Clients or Students: (suggested by first Ethics committee)

Astrologers do not date or engage in sexual intimacies with current clients or students within a minimum of three months following a consultation. Any sort of dating relationship is initiated only in the event that there are no definite, future plans for continued astrological counseling or mentoring.

The original document had a time frame of one month, which the first Ethics committee felt was too short.

Beginning a discussion on A.10.a.
The committee feels that the amount of time that must pass between last seeing someone as a client, and beginning to pursue a romantic relationship, and the issues raised by such, needs to be explored via a dialogue within the larger astrological community.  We felt it would be impossible to set firm standards for ALL astrologers, since the nature of the services offered by different types of astrologers varies greatly.  The key issues here are a client?s potential emotional vulnerability as a result of a session, and a tendency to project unrealistic expectations or romantic fantasies unto the astrologer that could easily be exploited by an emotionally needy or unscrupulous practitioner.  For instance, we assume that very little emotional intimacy is likely to be created in a business, financial, horary, electional or forecasting consultation ? and hence the danger is likely to be less in this type of situation than in psychological/transpersonal counseling work ? or indeed any type of consultation in which deep emotional issues are explored.  Even within the framework of this type of more intimate counseling work, we acknowledge a difference between a situation where an astrologer sees a client for a single session, and a situation where the client has seen the astrologer once a week for several months or years.

The committee was adamant, however, that under no conditions would it ever be defensible to use an astrological consultation as an opportunity to coerce or seduce a client into entering into a personal or romantic relationship ? or would it ever be ethical to censor or slant critical astrological information in hope of improving the chances of a later relationship.

[First, it's unrealistic to develop different intervals of time for different types of astrology. Also, it's relatively unusual for an astrologer to be working with the same client in once weekly or even once monthly sessions for a period of a year or more, so I don't think this should unduly influence our decision. Personally, I don't see the need for opening this up to community discussion. We have several dozen seasoned astrologers on the Board and Committee. Isn't this enough to simply take a vote and make a decision without further complicating our lives with lengthy and time-consuming public debates? ] GP

It is not unrealistic at all, since, at the end of the day, ethics is a matter of learning to be honest with both yourself and the client, and always choosing to do the right thing, regardless of what the "rules" say you're supposed to do.  In the end, ethics is not about RULES but about CHARACTER IN REAL TIME.  In some cases, that might mean never seeing the client in a romantic or social setting, in others in might mean being honest with the client about the kinds of projection issues that can result from a consultation, and waiting some reasonable period of time; and, in others, where the psyche is not engaged (and hence projection is not an issue), to allow fate and nature to take their course as the heavens will it. 

As for Glenn's 2nd point, this document will belong to OUR MEMBERSHIP.  In a highly charged area such as sexuality, in a profession with so many different manifestations, the committee believes that our membership's opinion is quite necessary. 

#4.

H.3. GIVING BUSINESS ADVICE

e. Business Partnerships

When working with the chart of a client's business partner or associate, astrologers require the client to obtain permission from the other person before disclosing information about that person's chart. Statements about that person are limited to matters that pertain to his or her potential role within the company.

Astrologers look at charts, endless numbers of charts. That?s what they do. Getting permission for every chart and possibly even charts of business associates, would severely limit the astrologer conducting their business. Certainly, in- depth analysis of an adult?s chart (without permission) could be seen as invasive and inappropriate. Negative assessments could hurt the business relationship between the parties. Still, astrologers are trained to make assessments of compatibility all the time when looking at relationship dynamics. What if a consultant was hired by a company to assess the key personnel, their attitudes, habits, words and actions to determine the health of the company?s interpersonal functioning? At the end of the observation time and using their trained skills, the consultant or team would offer conclusions and possibly recommend letting some employees go -- would that be unethical?

This is a touchy area because the astrologer can always be wrong -- indeed, anyone giving advice (in any consultation situation) can easily make an error. Does that mean one cannot offer an opinion or an interpretation because one could be wrong? Seeking permission from another person to discuss their chart may not always be possible or desirable in terms of business consultations. The two pivotal points seem to be 1) the maintenance of cautious and respectful boundaries regarding unnecessary and inappropriate psychological penetration into the third party, and 2) keeping the analysis focused strictly on those astrological perspectives, which are relevant to business considerations. This is a section that requires further understanding through healthy discussion.

Consulting astrologers practice only within the boundaries of their competence, do not misrepresent their formal academic qualifications, and do not claim to be psychologists or psychotherapists without the requisite training and certification.

* EC2 suggests opening a discussion/debate as to what astrological consultation/counseling is and how it differs or how it overlaps with psychotherapy. This larger question is at the heart of understanding what astrologers actually do in their sessions, or what to call it!

Astrologers relate astronomical configurations to a wide variety of human concerns. Their clients sometimes ask for follow-up information or for a chance to further "process" the astrological input. EC2 feels that astrologers should not be prohibited from continuing their relationships with their clients, even on a regular basis, so long as the clients feel well served and the astrologers are operating within the boundaries of their competence -- that is the critical point and is well-covered in the Ethics document.

That such astrological counsel will sometimes overlap with the territory of psychotherapy is inevitable, just as inevitably psychotherapists will sometimes discuss health or finance with their clients - areas outside their own core expertise. To suggest that an astrologer be prohibited from, for example, discussing emotions with a client is, we feel, ludicrous.

There are two core issues here: 1) an astrologer misrepresenting himself or herself as a trained psychotherapist, purporting to be able to offer that service, and 2) an astrologer practicing outside the boundaries of his or her competence. EC2's re-wording of this section directly addresses the first
issue, while section A.5.a has already addressed the second.

We're passionate about this one. We have two or three millennia of tradition involving astrologers interacting deeply with the lives, affairs, and souls of their clients. To surrender that ancient role leaves us with very little, and would represent a betrayal of our tradition.

Saying that astrologers "do not practice ongoing psychotherapy" is a seductive line. It's tempting to accept it, but it is a Trojan horse, mostly because the term "ongoing psychotherapy" begs a precise definition. The baby
could go out with the bathwater. We astrologers are often counselors, and we have a right to counsel. We simply do not have the right to misrepresent ourselves or to operate outside the boundaries of our competence.

EC2 defends its re-wording of the original on this basis.

If a client wants to see an astrologer on a regular basis, e.g., once monthly, and the client is already in psychotherapy, then astrologers strive to collaborate with the client?s primary psychotherapist. Sessions are utilized as an adjunct to therapy, e.g., clarifying natal issues and understanding transits, rather than attempting to provide an alternative remedial treatment.

If a client is receiving services from a mental health professional, and the astrologer contracts to see the client for regular sessions, e.g., once monthly, the astrologer encourages the client to reveal to the therapist the fact that they are also consulting an astrologer, explaining to said client the strong potential for confusion and unconscious sabotage present in the parallel therapeutic situation. However, the final decision belongs to the client and not the astrologer. The astrologer's only obligation is to advise the client that such notification is, in most cases, in their best interest.

While there may be times when clients could benefit from the collaboration of astrologer and psychologist, we also feel that respecting client control and self-determination is of great importance. The traditional medical model is notorious for practitioners taking control away from their "patients" rather than respecting the rights of their clients. As astrologers we strive to help build a strong sense of self and autonomy in our clients, and pressuring a client to give that up would appear counterproductive. If the client suffers from serious mental illness, the astrologer would in all likelihood be practicing outside his/her boundaries of competency unless he/she is also a mental health professional, in which case collaboration would presumably be covered under a separate agreement. A membership-wide debate exploring how to handle these situations would be revealing and educational.