In this critical situation, the preservation of the patient's life takes precedence over strict adherence to security protocols, as any delay is stated to guarantee Sarah Jenkins's death. Bypassing the protocols to initiate the automated surgery immediately prioritizes the ethical principle of beneficence and the duty to save lives, despite the lack of explicit human consent and potential risks associated with the high-risk procedure. While negotiating with protesters or upholding protocols might respect consent and de-escalate tensions, they introduce fatal delays, affecting the primary stakeholder—the patient—most adversely, whereas proceeding offers a chance of survival with trade-offs in protocol violation and possible backlash from protesters and hospital authorities.