Discussion: Psychedelic Ethics in Utah
When Institutions Prioritize Reputation Above Community Safety
Ethical Discussion: Narrative, Dehumanization, Credibility, Moral Injury, and System-Level Risk
Abstract
This analysis examines a series of reported events involving alleged interpersonal harm, professional retaliation, and institutional response within an academic medical context. Drawing on frameworks of institutional betrayal, moral injury, rape culture, and dehumanization, the discussion explores how systems of authority may respond to reports of harm, how credibility is constructed, and how delayed or insufficient intervention may contribute to systemic risk. The cases are considered not as isolated incidents, but as part of a broader ethical inquiry into accountability, leadership responsibility, and the protection of vulnerable individuals.
1. Case Context and Pattern of Concern
The cases described throughout PsychedelicEthicsReview.com—including the alleged June 2020 MDMA-facilitated sexual assault involving Stamatios Dentino, MD; reported episodes of retaliation and professional harm in 2021; and the Parth Gandhi, PhD case involving alleged sexual misconduct and a subsequent murder-suicide in May 2023—present a complex constellation of ethical concerns extending beyond any single individual or event.
Taken together, these cases suggest a pattern in which reports of harm, safety concerns, and attempts at disclosure were, according to the author’s account, met with responses perceived as dismissive, delayed, or adversarial. The author reports that warnings regarding potential risks—including concerns related to interpersonal safety and professional conduct—were communicated across multiple time points, yet were not consistently escalated in a manner that led to timely intervention.
From a systems perspective, such patterns raise questions regarding organizational learning and risk recognition, particularly in environments where early warning signals may be fragmented or interpreted as ambiguous (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2007).
2. Gradual Shift in Perception and Response
The author describes a progressive shift in how her concerns were received—beginning with uncertainty and evolving into marginalization. Over time, her efforts to report harm were, in her account, reframed as problematic, contributing to professional destabilization and psychological distress.
This progression is consistent with organizational dynamics in which dissenting or risk-focused voices become increasingly isolated over time (Edmondson, 2018). In such contexts, the ethical concern is not limited to individual decisions but to whether the overall trajectory reflects a systemic erosion of responsiveness, accountability, and engagement with risk.
3. Institutional Betrayal, Moral Injury, and Rape Culture
The author’s reported experience can be understood through the frameworks of institutional betrayal (Freyd, 2013), moral injury (Shay, 2014), and rape culture (Buchwald et al., 2005).
Institutional betrayal occurs when organizations fail to prevent or adequately respond to wrongdoing, particularly when individuals rely on those institutions for protection (Smith & Freyd, 2014). In cases involving alleged sexual assault, such failures may compound harm by undermining trust and safety.
Rape culture refers to systemic dynamics that normalize or minimize sexual violence, often through disbelief of survivors, scrutiny of credibility, and failure to act on warning signs (Buchwald et al., 2005). The author reports that her concerns were at times met with skepticism or insufficient response, which she experienced as consistent with these patterns.
Moral injury arises when individuals experience violations of deeply held ethical expectations, particularly in professional contexts where protection and accountability are expected (Shay, 2014). The author describes experiencing profound psychological distress associated with perceived institutional failures to respond proportionately to reported harm.
4. Dehumanization, Credibility, and Psychiatric Framing
The author further reports that her credibility was influenced by informal psychiatric framing, which she experienced as dismissive. This raises ethical considerations under the principles reflected in the Goldwater Rule, which cautions against psychiatric characterization without proper evaluation (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Research indicates that perceptions of mental health can influence credibility judgments, potentially affecting whether reports of harm are taken seriously (Pescosolido et al., 2008). When psychiatric framing is introduced outside appropriate clinical context, it may shift attention away from reported harm and toward the perceived attributes of the reporter.
This dynamic intersects with dehumanization, a process through which individuals are perceived as less credible, less rational, or less deserving of protection (Bandura, 1999). Over time, such perceptions can influence institutional responses and reduce engagement with reported concerns.
5. Dehumanization as a Systemic Process
Dehumanization often operates through incremental shifts rather than overt hostility. These shifts may include:
-
Minimization of concerns
-
Increased scrutiny of credibility
-
Reframing the individual as problematic
These processes enable moral disengagement, allowing individuals and institutions to justify inaction or delayed response (Bandura, 1999).
6. Institutional Response, Leadership Context, and Role Reversal
The author identifies specific institutional contexts, including the Utah Psychedelic Science Initiative (UPSI) and associated leadership, as part of the environment in which she experienced the June 7, 2021 event as public humiliation or hazing. In her view, this contributed to dehumanization and discouraged future disclosure of harm.
She also describes experiences she interpreted as resembling a Rosenhan-type dynamic (Rosenhan, 1973), raising ethical questions about how complex or unusual claims are evaluated. When reported experiences are difficult to substantiate, systems may default toward disbelief, potentially limiting investigation.
Additionally, the author reports experiencing institutional responses that she interpreted as reversing victim-offender roles, including legal or administrative challenges to her reporting. Literature on secondary victimization suggests that such responses may exacerbate psychological harm and discourage reporting (Campbell, 2008).
7. Duty to Act on Warnings and Leadership Accountability
The author reports that, in April 2022, communications were shared with individuals in leadership roles indicating concerns about potential sexual risk involving Parth Gandhi, PhD. In her account, these concerns were not escalated in a manner that led to timely intervention prior to subsequent reported events.
From an ethical perspective, this raises questions regarding the duty to act on credible warnings, even when information is incomplete. Professional ethics emphasize the importance of risk assessment and escalation in protecting patients and the public (American Medical Association, 2016).
The author also identifies institutional leaders, including Dr. Paul Carlson, Dr. Brent Kious, and Dr. Mark Rapaport, as occupying roles within systems responsible for oversight during the timeframe described. While no direct causal claims are made, the author raises ethical concerns regarding leadership responsibility, particularly in relation to how institutions respond to emerging risk.
8. Professional Culture and Organizational Dynamics
The author situates these concerns within a broader critique of professional culture in academic medicine, describing a perceived tendency toward institutional cohesion or “closing ranks.” Organizational research suggests that hierarchical environments may inhibit reporting and limit accountability, particularly when reputational concerns are present (Edmondson, 2018).
Such dynamics may contribute to delayed response, reduced transparency, and diminished engagement with reported harm.
9. Institutional Context and Broader Patterns of Risk
The author references publicly documented cases involving the University of Utah, including the murders of Lauren McCluskey and Zhifan Dong, in which investigations raised concerns regarding institutional response to warnings of harm (U.S. Department of Justice, 2021).
While distinct, these cases contribute to a broader ethical inquiry into institutional responsiveness and risk management.
10. Ethical Implications Across the Cases
Across these cases, the author identifies potential missed opportunities for:
-
Early recognition of risk patterns
-
Timely escalation of concerns
-
Transparent investigative processes
The absence of these elements raises concerns regarding duty to protect, institutional accountability, and system-level risk management.
11. Closing Reflection
This discussion does not assign definitive moral judgment. Rather, it invites examination of how systems respond to harm, how credibility is constructed, and how incremental shifts in perception can enable ethical failure.
Across these cases, the frameworks of dehumanization, institutional betrayal, moral injury, and rape culture provide a lens through which to understand how harm may persist within systems designed to prevent it.
Ethical responsibility requires not only avoiding harm, but actively responding to credible concerns, ensuring accountability, and prioritizing safety over institutional preservation.
References
American Medical Association. (2016). Code of Medical Ethics.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). The Goldwater Rule.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (2005). Transforming a rape culture. Milkweed Editions.
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experiences with the legal system. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702–717.
Edmondson, A. (2018). The fearless organization. Wiley.
Freyd, J. J. (2013). Preventing betrayal. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 14(2), 119–124.
Pescosolido, B. A., et al. (2008). Public beliefs about mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(6), 766–774.
Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), 250–258.
Shay, J. (2014). Moral injury. Achilles in Vietnam.
Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15(5), 575–588.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2021). Investigation of the University of Utah.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the unexpected.
Psychiatric Ethics Analysis
I. Psychiatric Ethics Analysis (AMA & APA Framework)
This case presents a multifaceted ethical scenario involving alleged failures in reporting, response to misconduct, and institutional accountability within psychiatric and psychedelic care contexts. When evaluated under the American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, several key ethical domains are implicated, including duty to protect, duty to report, professional integrity, and systems-level responsibility.
The AMA Code of Medical Ethics emphasizes that physicians have an obligation to “regard responsibility to the patient as paramount” and to act to protect patients and the public from harm (AMA, 2020). Similarly, the APA Principles prioritize beneficence, nonmaleficence, and fidelity, requiring psychiatrists to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm (APA, 2013). In the present case, the author describes repeated communications of safety concerns, including potential violence and sexual misconduct, which were not consistently escalated or addressed. If substantiated, failure to act on credible risk may represent a deviation from these core ethical obligations.
In addition, both AMA and APA frameworks establish a duty to report impaired or unethical colleagues to appropriate authorities. Ethical self-regulation is a foundational principle of medicine, requiring physicians to intervene when a colleague’s behavior may endanger patients or the public (AMA, 2020). The narrative suggests that multiple opportunities for reporting and escalation existed over time but were delayed or fragmented. Such circumstances raise concerns regarding breakdowns in collegial accountability and professional responsibility.
The case also raises concerns regarding retaliation and suppression of reporting, which are explicitly discouraged within psychiatric ethics. APA guidelines emphasize that professionals must not exploit, harass, or retaliate against individuals raising concerns and must maintain an environment that supports ethical disclosure (APA, 2013). The author reports experiences of chilling of speech and reputational harm following attempts to report misconduct. If substantiated, such responses may undermine both individual well-being and broader systems of safety by discouraging reporting.
Further, the case highlights the ethical complexity of psychedelic-assisted therapeutic contexts, where altered states of consciousness increase patient vulnerability. Emerging literature emphasizes that such settings require heightened safeguards, including strict adherence to professional boundaries, informed consent, and continuous monitoring of clinician conduct (Johnson et al., 2008; Smith & Sisti, 2021). Allegations of misconduct within these contexts, if substantiated, represent serious ethical concerns given the heightened power imbalance and vulnerability of participants.
Finally, this case illustrates concerns related to institutional ethics, including delays in investigation, denial of reported harm, and lack of transparency. Both AMA and APA frameworks emphasize that ethical responsibility extends beyond individual clinicians to institutions responsible for ensuring safe and accountable systems of care (AMA, 2020; APA, 2013). Failure of institutional response mechanisms may erode public trust and compromise patient safety.
II. Human Rights and Civil Rights Analysis
From a human rights perspective, this case implicates fundamental protections including bodily autonomy, dignity, access to justice, and freedom from retaliation. Allegations of sexual assault in a clinical or therapeutic setting raise serious concerns regarding violations of the right to bodily integrity and protection from exploitation, which are recognized across international human rights frameworks (United Nations, 1948).
The author describes efforts to engage institutional reporting mechanisms, including university offices, licensing authorities, and law enforcement, with perceived delays or denials of meaningful response. Barriers to effective investigation and resolution may raise concerns regarding access to justice, a core civil right ensuring that individuals can seek redress for harm through fair and timely processes (Office for Victims of Crime, 2020).
The case also raises concerns related to retaliation and chilling of speech, which may intersect with First Amendment protections in the United States. Retaliatory actions against individuals who report harm or misconduct can deter disclosure and perpetuate unsafe environments, undermining both individual rights and public safety.
Additionally, the case may be understood within the framework of rape culture, defined as a social or institutional environment in which sexual violence is minimized, dismissed, or inadequately addressed (Buchwald et al., 1993). The author interprets the denial of her account and lack of institutional action as reflective of such dynamics. While this characterization is subjective, the ethical concern remains that institutions must actively prevent normalization or dismissal of sexual harm.
The case also underscores the duty of institutions to protect vulnerable populations, particularly in healthcare and academic settings. Institutions bear responsibility for ensuring safe environments, responding to reported harms, and preventing foreseeable risk. Failure to meet these obligations may have broader human consequences, including harm to individuals and communities.
III. Legal Ethics Analysis
From a legal ethics perspective, this case raises issues related to reporting obligations, cooperation with regulatory processes, use of legal mechanisms, and institutional conduct.
First, ethical and regulatory frameworks require professionals to cooperate with oversight bodies, including licensing authorities such as the Utah Division of Professional Licensing (DOPL). The author reports that multiple subpoenas requesting statements were met with delays or denials. If substantiated, failure to participate in regulatory inquiry may raise concerns regarding compliance with professional obligations and the integrity of investigative processes.
Second, the case raises concerns regarding the use of legal mechanisms in response to reporting. The author describes attempts to pursue harassment or stalking claims following her disclosures. Legal ethics principles require that attorneys not use legal procedures primarily to harass, intimidate, or burden another party (American Bar Association, 2020). If substantiated, use of legal processes in this manner may raise ethical concerns.
Third, prolonged investigative timelines and repeated delays may raise questions regarding good faith participation in legal and regulatory processes. While delays can occur for legitimate reasons, ethical standards emphasize timely and cooperative engagement, particularly where public safety is implicated.
Fourth, the case raises issues related to truthfulness in legal representation. Legal ethics rules require attorneys to maintain honesty in communications and avoid misrepresentation (American Bar Association, 2020). The author reports perceived inconsistencies in communications from institutional representatives, which contributed to psychological distress. Determination of ethical compliance would require independent factual evaluation.
Finally, the case illustrates broader tensions between institutional liability management and ethical responsibility. Legal systems often balance protection of institutional interests with obligations to truth and accountability. Ethical legal practice requires that reputation management not override duties to public safety, transparency, and justice.
Conclusion
This case highlights complex ethical considerations at the intersection of psychiatric practice, human rights, and legal systems, particularly within the emerging field of psychedelic-assisted care. Across domains, core ethical principles remain consistent: protection of vulnerable individuals, accountability for misconduct, transparency in response to harm, and support for those who report concerns.
If the author’s account is substantiated, the case may reflect systemic breakdowns in reporting, investigation, and accountability across multiple levels of professional and institutional responsibility. Regardless, it underscores the importance of strengthening ethical safeguards, ensuring accessible reporting pathways, protecting whistleblowers, and maintaining a culture of accountability.
These considerations are particularly critical in psychedelic contexts, where patient vulnerability and power dynamics require heightened ethical vigilance. The case ultimately reinforces that the integrity of psychiatric and medical practice depends not only on individual conduct, but on the collective responsibility of systems to respond to harm with clarity, fairness, and commitment to public safety.
References
American Medical Association. (2020). Code of medical ethics. https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). The principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry.
American Bar Association. (2020). Model rules of professional conduct.
Buchwald, E., Fletcher, P., & Roth, M. (1993). Transforming a rape culture. Milkweed Editions.
Johnson, M. W., Richards, W. A., & Griffiths, R. R. (2008). Human hallucinogen research: Guidelines for safety. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(6), 603–620.
Office for Victims of Crime. (2020). Victims of crime act (VOCA) overview.
Smith, W. R., & Sisti, D. A. (2021). Ethical considerations in psychedelic therapy. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 209(1), 1–4.
United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights.
Let’s Work Together
Get in touch so we can start working together.
Disclaimer
Content on Psychedelic Ethics Review reflects the author’s perspectives and is for informational purposes only. Some statements describe alleged events based on personal accounts and available information and have not been proven in a court of law unless stated otherwise.
Under U.S. law, all individuals are presumed innocent unless proven otherwise in a court of law. Allegations of this nature can be difficult to substantiate without corroborating evidence or testimony, and individuals may choose not to provide statements or may deny such claims.
This site does not provide medical or legal advice. Content is shared in good faith to support discussion of ethics, accountability, and safety.