PODE acknowledges that some acts have both a positive and a negative effect. In all the cases we’ve discussed here the negative effect is an unwanted death. The question is whether that death can justifiably be described as a murder.
Again, in all the cases we’ve raised the death comes as a direct result of the act even though the act was not directed toward that death. The child dies as a direct result of the operation; untold civilians died as a direct result of the Allied bombing of (e.g.) Schweinfurt; the person tied to the tracks dies as a direct result of the switch being thrown. I don’t see the distinction being made here.
None of the actions in the above scenarios is directed at harm, yet harm - death - is the inevitable consequence in all of them.
Perhaps the case of the bombing is clearer since it is more analogous to the trolley scenario. The same bombs that were dropped in WWII to destroy the ball bearing factory also destroyed half the city, and very likely thousands of civilians. Again, ignoring special cases like Hiroshima, and Tokyo, generally the bombing and shelling of cities that had military significance was not deemed immoral. So: make the case that the civilian deaths were murders, because if you can’t do that then there is no case to be made that throwing the switch was a murderous action.