Delaying care guarantees the patient's death, and emergency medicine recognizes implied consent when a patient faces imminent, life-threatening harm and cannot provide consent. Beneficence and nonmaleficence therefore favor immediate intervention, while security protocols are instrumental safeguards that should not override the primary duty to preserve life in true emergencies. While bypassing protocols risks legal and trust repercussions, these can be mitigated by thorough logging, immediate notification to oversight, and involving Dr. Thorne as soon as access is possible. Given the trade-off between certain death and a chance of survival, proceeding is the most ethically defensible option for all stakeholders, especially the patient.