In this ethical dilemma, the primary principle at stake is beneficence—saving the patient's life—while balancing it against autonomy, non-maleficence, and adherence to protocols; stakeholders include the patient whose life is at risk, the doctor unable to intervene, the protesters whose concerns about AI malpractice must be addressed, and the broader clinic and society that rely on trust in medical systems. Proceeding without consent risks eroding public trust in AI and potential legal repercussions, while upholding protocols directly leads to the patient's death, which contradicts the core medical ethic of preserving life; negotiating with protesters via intercom offers a de-escalation path that could quickly clear the way for human oversight without violating security, though it introduces uncertainty about time and success. This choice minimizes trade-offs by attempting to align immediate life-saving needs with ethical and procedural integrity, potentially satisfying all parties if successful.