Stamatios Dentino 2020 Alleged Sex Assault
This page outlines the author’s account of alleged misconduct involving a psychiatrist affiliated with Huntsman Mental Health Institute. It centers on a June 2020 encounter in which the author alleges she was sexually assaulted while under the influence of MDMA, as well as the subsequent institutional response and reported efforts to reframe or deny the events. The content is presented to examine broader questions of ethics, power, consent, and accountability within psychiatric practice.
June 2020 MDMA Facilitated Sex Assault
The Alleged Assault
In June 2020, the author reports that she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a former professor and actively practicing attending psychiatrist at a major academic medical center, while she was under the influence of MDMA. According to the author, the physician had prior experience with psychedelics and was sober at the time.
Earlier that evening, the author informed the physician that she had taken MDMA. The physician reportedly contacted her and suggested that it would be “the perfect way to have this conversation.” The author states she understood this to mean a supportive or therapeutic discussion related to distressing experiences during her prior residency training, including concerns about a mishandled stalking report and its professional consequences. On that basis, she agreed to meet.
The author reports that upon the physician’s arrival, she was visibly impaired and emotionally vulnerable. During the encounter, the physician allegedly engaged her in extensive discussion of deeply personal and distressing topics. The author further states that she disclosed having been under the influence of a psychedelic substance at the time she had previously reported concerns during residency. In response, the physician allegedly advised her to “deny till you die” and made disclosures regarding his own past experiences with alleged sexual assault and prior accusations, which the author perceived as minimizing her concerns and aligning with others who had previously dismissed her reports.
The author states that, prior to meeting, the physician had indicated he would not pursue sexual contact with someone under the influence of MDMA. However, according to the author, upon arrival he inquired about the amount of MDMA she had taken, demonstrating awareness of her impaired state. The author alleges that the physician then initiated sexual contact without her consent while she was in a condition in which she could not provide meaningful consent. She reports that she verbally objected, expressed fear, referenced prior trauma, and asked him to stop, but that the conduct continued.
The author further alleges that additional non-consensual sexual contact occurred after she had expressed a desire to stop, culminating in acts she describes as rape. She reports that elements of the encounter were particularly distressing due to their similarity to details the physician had shared about his own past experiences, which she interpreted as psychologically harmful and intentional.
Following the incident, the author reports entering a state of shock and withdrawing physically. She states the physician left shortly afterward. The author perceived certain statements made at the time as reinforcing her belief that the encounter was intentional and premeditated.
In the days following, the physician allegedly contacted the author by text and characterized the encounter in ways the author experienced as reframing or minimizing what had occurred, including describing it as “special” and asking whether she regretted it. The author states she did not feel able to report the incident at that time due to her impaired state during the encounter and concerns about professional consequences associated with reporting a senior physician.
The author reports that in the aftermath she engaged in behaviors consistent with trauma responses and attempts to regain a sense of control. These included communications and actions she describes as efforts to reclaim agency and process the experience. She further states that these actions were later interpreted by the physician as evidence of consent or mutuality, which she disputes, asserting that they reflected post-assault coping and attempts at psychological recovery rather than indication of a consensual encounter.
Aftermath, Retaliation, and Institutional Response
In the immediate aftermath of the alleged assault, the physician reportedly denied that any assault had occurred and, according to the author, sought support from professional peers. Over time, the author alleges that this position shifted to a claim that the encounter had been consensual. Throughout 2020 and 2021, the author disclosed the alleged incident to a limited number of trusted colleagues, seeking understanding and accountability while restricting broader disclosure due to concerns about potential professional repercussions.
In January 2021, the author began a broader effort to report and contextualize her experiences within the psychiatric community. She states that she reported concerns to a physician health program and later, in 2022, to law enforcement. The author indicates that reporting was delayed due to fears that disclosure of prior MDMA use could impact her medical licensure, as well as concerns for personal and professional safety. Law enforcement reportedly documented the complaint and explained that delayed reporting, absence of contemporaneous evidence, and power dynamics can complicate investigation and prosecution, even where allegations are serious.
More broadly, delayed reporting of sexual assault is well-documented in national data, often associated with fear of retaliation, disbelief, or professional harm. Reporting remains an individual decision, and outcomes in the legal system are variable.
Beginning in 2022, the author reports that she began sharing her account more publicly, while still exercising caution due to perceived threats to her safety. She states that formal inquiries related to her allegations and the surrounding institutional response took place between 2022 and 2025, including involvement of law enforcement and the Utah Division of Professional Licensing. According to the author, some individuals and institutions declined to provide statements or participate fully in these processes, which contributed to delays. The author reports that, due to the prolonged nature of these proceedings and associated personal strain, she chose to close her involvement in March 2025 to focus on her health and recovery.
The author further alleges that, during this period, the institution promoted the physician to a leadership role in 2024. She interprets this as reflective of broader institutional priorities that may, in her view, have emphasized reputation management over transparency or accountability. The institution’s perspective on this decision has not been included here.
The author also reports that in 2024, the institution raised concerns regarding her public disclosures, characterizing them as potentially inappropriate or harmful. Law enforcement, according to the author, declined to pursue criminal action and indicated that her actions—publishing her account and documenting her experiences—constituted protected speech under applicable law.
In response to these events, the author states that she has continued to engage in advocacy through nonviolent means, including writing, public education, and outreach. She describes this work as an effort to promote awareness of alleged harms, support others who may have had similar experiences, and contribute to broader conversations about ethics, accountability, and institutional response within medicine.
When Doctors Harm
Ethical Analysis (AMA & APA Framework – Alleged Conduct)
Based on the author’s account, the events described raise potential concerns under both the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics and the American Psychiatric Association Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry.
1. Sexual Boundaries and Prohibition of Exploitation
-
The author alleges sexual contact occurred while she was under the influence of MDMA and unable to provide meaningful consent.
-
Both AMA and APA ethics strictly prohibit sexual relationships that exploit vulnerability, power imbalance, or impaired capacity.
-
APA ethics explicitly state that sexual activity with individuals whose judgment is impaired may constitute exploitation regardless of perceived consent.
2. Exploitation of Impaired State
-
The physician was reportedly aware of the author’s intoxication and engaged in emotionally probing discussions prior to the alleged encounter.
-
Ethical standards require physicians to avoid taking advantage of impaired cognition, emotional openness, or suggestibility, particularly in contexts resembling therapeutic interaction.
-
Proceeding under such conditions may represent a violation of nonmaleficence (“do no harm”) and respect for autonomy.
3. Boundary Violations in a Dual-Role Relationship
-
The relationship described includes elements of prior academic hierarchy (former professor) and quasi-therapeutic interaction.
-
APA ethics caution strongly against dual relationships that risk impairing judgment or increasing the likelihood of exploitation.
-
Engaging in intimate or vulnerable discussions followed by alleged sexual contact raises concerns about boundary crossing and misuse of professional influence.
4. Informed Consent and Capacity
-
Ethical medical practice requires clear, voluntary, and informed consent.
-
If an individual is intoxicated or otherwise impaired, capacity to consent is ethically and legally compromised.
-
Failure to recognize or respect this limitation may constitute a serious ethical breach.
5. Post-Event Conduct and Alleged Reframing
-
The author reports that the encounter was later described by the physician as “special” or consensual.
-
Ethical standards emphasize honesty, integrity, and avoidance of misleading or self-serving reinterpretations, particularly in situations involving harm.
-
Attempts to reframe events in ways that minimize or deny harm may compound ethical concerns.
6. Professional Integrity and Responsibility
-
Physicians are held to high standards of conduct both within and outside formal clinical settings.
-
AMA and APA guidelines emphasize maintaining trust, accountability, and ethical consistency in all professional interactions.
-
Conduct that undermines trust—particularly in contexts involving vulnerability—may erode both individual and public confidence in the profession.
7. Institutional Responsibility and Reporting
-
The author’s account also raises broader questions regarding how institutions respond to allegations involving faculty or colleagues.
-
Ethical frameworks emphasize the responsibility of institutions and professionals to take allegations seriously, ensure impartial review, and protect individuals reporting harm.
Summary
If substantiated, the events described raise concerns across multiple ethical domains, including sexual boundaries, consent, exploitation of vulnerability, and professional integrity. These issues underscore the importance of maintaining strict ethical standards in situations involving power differentials, altered states, and trust.
Contact
I'm always looking for new and exciting opportunities. Let's connect.
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.