Why would I want to be complicit in the death of anyone, let alone a child or someone with intellectual disabilities that didn't or couldn't understand the question or the ramifications?
The game theory discussion is interesting, but this is what really interests me about this question.
What moral code dictates that if faced with a choice of certainly saving your own life or risking your life in an attempt to save the life of another (with an unknown result of either both of you living or both of you dying), you must choose risking your own life? If you are not the direct cause of the death, in what way are you complicit in the death, if your own survival is not assured?
In this situation in particular, is it morally wrong to choose to save your own life when every other person involved has the same option and does not "need" your self sacrifice to save their own lives on their own (by choosing the orange pill)?
Under the terms of this construct, I choose the orange pill, and I don't believe I would have feel any guilt about that. I could certainly end up with regret (what if my kids chose green and died?), but regret =/ guilt.