I find this very interesting. I think this is a tactic used by various sources (politicians, media) in order to distract people from the issue at hand. What is more sensational will grab our attention much faster than keeping account of what is going on. 

I think this really highlights the difference between privileged society and those who are not so privileged. The fact that there is both physical and cultural limitations placed on these women makes me wonder if this plays a direct role in their state. Not that it has to do with all of it of course, but it might be an important factor.  Either way, comparing the situations between Sweden and Niger, it really does make one think whether what is going on in Niger could be considered an extreme of how bias can have an indirect on the welfare of its people (example: women are often illiterate, yet there is a call for more educated midwives)

But what about when one actually HAS to make these decisions? When you are actually there, what will your response be? Realistically speaking, you would only have maybe a few seconds to make that decision, and I highly doubt someone would mull the moral ups and downs before making a rash action. As it says further down in the article, I think it also has to do with how intimate and personal the situation becomes. With the lever, you can distance yourself, in your mind, tell yourself the train killed the person, not you. Chances are that if a person was in that sort of situation with under 5 seconds to think, it would be much easier to pull the lever and tell yourself you had no choice. Pushing someone, however, would make it YOUR fault. YOU would be responsible for this person's death, and chances are you'd be the last thing they see. Which is why I find this article so interesting. Its fascinating how putting a middle man in a situation can completely change a point of view or outcome.