What if we could cure cancer and heart disease by physically debilitating a few dozen people? Would that also be okay?
Is the premise of the question that choosing inaction adverts culpability, in a situation where either outcome is abhorrent? But inaction has only the appearance of innocence: if you really have the choice of which outcome will occur, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by going with a default. The fact that the greater evil is the status quo doesn't make it a more ethical choice.
You say that like it's fact but it's your opinion based on your ethics. There's also information we don't know. Are these people volunteering or being selected against their will? Either way it would also be fine to argue that the rights of those people are so important that society can't debilitate them even if it solves cancer and heart disease. Everybody has to die of something so why ruin these peoples lives when the people saved by not getting heart disease/cancer die from something else anyway?