Would killing one be in line with EA if it can save 10?

Please let me know the flaw in my logic, or if it is sound. I’m a big fan of EA but this was brought up in a dis­cus­sion with a friend and I’ve been mul­ling over it.

1. If donat­ing $x to can­cer re­search saves 1, but donat­ing $x to against malaria saves 10, then against malaria would be the cor­rect choice based on the be­lief in effec­tive al­tru­ism, cor­rect?

1.1 As­sume that with­out that $x, the 1 or 10 peo­ple (in the group that the money was not given to) will die.

1.2 As­sume also that you are fully aware of both op­tions in 1 as well as the reper­cus­sions in item 1.1.

2. By donat­ing to against malaria, by the op­por­tu­nity cost you’re in­di­rectly kil­ling that one per­son with can­cer.

3. As­sume you had the op­tion to di­rectly kill 1 per­son to save 10 or di­rectly kill the 10 to save 1. (Just a hy­po­thet­i­cal, not ad­vo­cated for as per fo­rum rules).

4. In item 1, you are in­di­rectly kil­ling 1 to save 10. In point 3, if you choose the first op­tion you are di­rectly kil­ling 1 to save 10.

5. In both situ­a­tions, you had knowl­edge that sav­ing the 10 would re­sult in kil­ling the 1.

6. The only differ­ence is in the in­tent to kill that one per­son pre­sent in the sec­ond di­rect situ­a­tion (item 3) but not the first (item 1).

7. If you are aware that you will be in­di­rectly kil­ling them in the sec­ond situ­a­tion, then what differ­ent does the ac­tual in­tent to kill make?

The first op­tion in item 3 in­tu­itively seems wrong, but it seems to fall in line with the be­liefs of effec­tive al­tru­ism, so can some­one help me iden­tify my flaw?