Acknowledging Harm Privately, Remaining Neutral Publicly

Throughout the events described on this site, the author had intermittent but meaningful interactions with Brent Kious, MD, a psychiatrist, ethicist, and faculty member at the Huntsman Mental Health Institute. Dr. Kious is widely regarded within academic psychiatry as a thoughtful and highly intelligent scholar, particularly in the domains of psychiatric ethics and philosophy. The author experienced him as a principled and intellectually rigorous individual who approaches complex ethical questions with care and seriousness.

Dr. Kious is professionally affiliated with both Dr. Benjamin Lewis and Stamatios Dentino, MD, within the same institutional system at HMHI. Within that context, the author understands his decision to remain largely neutral in relation to the events described. At the same time, the author recalls that during the 2022 University of Utah Psychiatric Association (UPA) presentation, Dr. Kious offered a notable impression of the author’s approach—specifically, the use of a case study framework to examine harms within the community. The author experienced this as recognition of a strategy that highlighted broader ethical concerns, including patterns that she interpreted as reflective of rape culture within the institutional environment, particularly in relation to the Parth Gandhi, PhD case.

Over the course of several years, Dr. Kious allowed continued contact with the author. This ongoing openness, even amid complexity and professional sensitivity, was experienced by the author as a meaningful act of kindness. The author notes that these interactions were helpful in processing and organizing her experiences, and she expresses gratitude for that engagement.

The author makes no definitive moral judgments about Dr. Kious or any individual referenced in this work. Instead, she invites readers to consider a broader ethical question: At what point does an individual become morally compromised? How much harm, inaction, or complicity is required before a person is no longer perceived as “good”? These questions are presented as part of an ongoing ethical inquiry rather than a conclusion.

This inquiry connects to the concept of a slippery slope in ethical decision-making, as well as the process of dehumanization, which has been widely documented in both psychological and historical literature. Harm often emerges gradually, through shifts in perception that recast individuals as less credible, less deserving of protection, or outside the bounds of concern. Over time, this can enable behaviors that might otherwise be considered unacceptable.

Historical examples illustrate the gravity of this process. In Nazi Germany, state-sponsored propaganda and policy systematically dehumanized Jewish individuals, portraying them as inferior and dangerous. These narratives were used to justify exclusion, persecution, and ultimately mass violence during the Holocaust. Such examples are frequently cited in ethical scholarship as warnings about how incremental normalization of harm can escalate into profound injustice.

The author reflects that, in her own experience, she perceived elements of dehumanization within her professional training and environment. She describes events—including what she experienced as a public hazing incident on June 7, 2021, and a subsequent experience she interpreted as a recreation of the Rosenhan experiment—as contributing to a sense of marginalization and loss of agency. She further describes later experiences in which her efforts to report harm and advocate for community safety were reframed or challenged, including through extended investigative processes and disagreements about the accuracy of her account.

According to the author, these dynamics contributed to psychological distress and complicated efforts toward resolution and accountability. She interprets these experiences as part of a broader pattern in which reporting harm became associated with reputational or professional consequences, rather than support.

Within this context, Dr. Kious is included in this narrative not as a subject of accusation, but as a close observer of these events over time, from 2021 through April 2026. As Chair of the UPA Ethics Committee and a participant in the broader ethical discourse within the institution, the author felt it was both relevant and appropriate to acknowledge his presence and perspective.

The author concludes by reiterating her view that Dr. Kious is a person of integrity, intelligence, and ethical seriousness. His willingness to remain accessible and engage respectfully, even in a complex and sensitive context, is something she continues to regard with appreciation.