When the IMF takes over a distress country, the people of the country is often the last in the negotiation.

The IMF doesn't take over a country, it loans countries money to stabilize their currencies. This isn't just done to safeguard the well being of the international money markets but also out of consideration of what a collapsing economy's effect would have upon the people in that country and abroad depending upon the countries manufacturing capabilities and how that would effect the global economy. It also isn't done by one man's consensus but several members of a board in consensus from various other countries. Every country commits to contribute a quota of monetary funds dependent upon the economic size of each country, those countries aren't allowed to loan out more than their quota so if their quota is maxed out they have to try and convince countries who quota's aren't maxed out a compelling reason they should help stabilize another countries economy. Some may have more of a reason to be concerned about the economic well being of another country dependent upon how much they are intertwined with that countries economic input and output to their own country. That country could have already tried to help the other country but maybe things such as corruption among government officials are seen as a cause as to why it's not helping. Ultimately though when they come together at the IMF to make these request the issues are resolved among a consensus of individuals and not just one person from one of the countries whose losses stand at a greater risk if the country they are requesting money for fails. This gives everyone the opportunity to look at the risk factors and contemplate the movements/actions/requirements that must be met moving forward.