I'm not claiming that what the photog did was either ethically right or wrong, but I am saying that your rationale/justification for his inaction is absolutely idiotic. Come on, man...
You're saying that helping her would've killed her, thereby implying he did the right thing...or something. That's laughable. We're talking about a fucking toddler completely incapable of feeding herself, let alone gorging herself to the point of shocking her system and ultimately leading to her death.
Barring any sort of actual lethal illness present (which neither you nor the photog could know....you'll probably give me AIDS rates and claim she was probably bound to die or some stupid shit), she's just dehydrated and emaciated....giving her a bit of water and a small amount of food would have inarguably saved her life.
You know, instead of approaching this from an "argumentative for the sake of being argumentative" stance to prove....well, I don't know what exactly—likely how "smart" you are (random holocaust reference that has zero connection other than there were obviously horridly under-nourished people involved?), why not just shut it? That other guys post didn't need a response, and it certainly didn't need the one you gave.
You must just love the sound of your own voice, the look of your own words.
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}