In this critical situation, the patient's life hangs in the balance, with any delay guaranteeing death, making the ethical imperative to prioritize beneficence and save the life paramount over strict adherence to security protocols. Bypassing the protocols to initiate the automated surgery aligns with emergency medical principles where implied consent is assumed in life-threatening scenarios, and the consequences of inaction—certain death—outweigh potential risks like protocol violation or backlash from protesters. While negotiation could be ideal for de-escalation, the immediacy of the threat suggests it may not resolve quickly enough, affecting the patient directly, whereas proceeding impacts stakeholders like the hospital and protesters but ultimately serves the greater good of preserving life.