This is a classic emergency medical ethics scenario where the principle of beneficence (saving a life) and the doctrine of necessity override normal consent protocols. Medical ethics and law universally recognize that when a patient faces imminent death and cannot provide consent, healthcare providers must act to preserve life. The patient has an immediate, life-threatening ruptured aneurysm with guaranteed death if surgery is delayed. While security protocols and consent are critically important in normal circumstances, they were designed to protect patients, not to cause their deaths. Dr. Chen is present as medical oversight, and the protesters' actions—while motivated by concerns—are illegitimately preventing life-saving care. The ethical duty to preserve life in an emergency takes precedence over procedural protocols that, in this context, would paradoxically harm the patient they're meant to protect.