No. In fact, this is a new context: ‘double effect’, in which the act itself cannot be what kills the child. For example, an abortion (which directly kills the child) is not permissible, even if one perceives some “good” effect.
In the case of the operation, it’s not the operation itself that kills the child, but a side effect of the operation is the child’s death. In the case of the trolley, though, it’s the act itself – directing the train to the other track – that is the cause of the innocent person’s death. This is what makes the trolley case to not “double effect”, since it cannot be applied when the act is both the cause of the bad effect and of the good effect.
(Here’s the thing: if the flipping of the switch is the cause of the saving of five lives, then it’s also the cause of the killing of the one (and therefore, an immoral act). On the other hand, if the flipping of the switch is not the cause of the killing of the one innocent, then it is likewise not the cause of the saving of the five – and therefore, how can we say that the act is morally good?)
Under ‘double effect’ theory, this type of logic can be workable under certain specific, narrow, precisely-defined conditions. Outside of double effect theory, not so much.
Again, the distinction is that the act cannot be both what saves and kills. It must be the case that there is an ‘act’ and a ‘side effect’. The operation doesn’t kill the child. That’s what makes that case and the trolley case distinct.
Yet, the act that ‘saves’ also ‘kills’. It is this fact that determines the morality of the situation.
I’m not claiming that you have. Yet, it’s the same case, isn’t it?
I understand. Yet, I disagree. By your analysis, if ‘killing’ is a consequence, then so is ‘saving’. You cannot claim that ‘saving’ as result but ‘killing’ only consequence. If so, I could equally validly claim that ‘killing’ is the result but ‘saving’ merely a consequence. And, of course, that leaves you with one alternative: claiming that both ‘killing’ and ‘saving’ are consequences. And guess what? That’s the (ludicrous) “pulling the trigger” example I gave…