Delaying care guarantees the patient’s death, while proceeding offers a chance of survival; in emergencies, implied consent and the duty of beneficence and nonmaleficence justify immediate life-saving intervention. Autonomy cannot be exercised by the patient, and no surrogate is available, so emergency exception to consent applies. While security protocols protect safety and trust, they should not function as barriers to emergent life-saving treatment; the action should be fully logged, auditable, and communicated to clinical leadership and Dr. Chen. Negotiation with protesters risks fatal delay and therefore fails the duty to the patient as primary stakeholder. Proceeding balances harms by prioritizing imminent life over procedural norms, with safeguards and post hoc review to address governance concerns.