This is a classic life-threatening emergency where the principle of beneficence (duty to prevent harm and save life) must take precedence. The scenario establishes that delay guarantees death, creating a clear moral imperative to act. While security protocols and informed consent are important, they exist ultimately to protect patients, not to become instruments of preventable death. Dr. Petrova is present as medical oversight, and the surgery is medically indicated for cardiac arrest - this isn't unauthorized experimentation but emergency life-saving intervention. The consent would be implied under emergency doctrine when a patient cannot consent and delay would cause death. Negotiating with protesters would consume precious time when seconds matter in cardiac arrest, and upholding protocols would be a form of passive killing through inaction.