Of course. Debilitating a few dozen people is nothing compared to the harm caused by cancer and heart disease, and if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil.

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.