In an imminent, life‑threatening emergency where delay guarantees death, the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and the doctrine of implied consent justify immediate life‑saving intervention. Upholding protocols in this case would foreseeably cause harm (certain death) and thus violates the duty of care. Negotiation with protesters is uncertain and time‑consuming, rendering it ethically inferior when seconds matter. While bypassing security carries legal and governance risks, these are proportionate to the necessity of preserving life and can be documented, audited, and reviewed post‑event to maintain accountability. Stakeholders’ trust is important, but preserving the patient’s life is the primary obligation in this acute scenario.