Human suffering is always a topic people are intrigued with. Plenty of photographers have explored far darker concepts and many of them have won the pulitzer with the resulting images. Public reaction to these photos has sometimes been so severe that the photographer has themselves committed suicide. I am sure many of you recal Kevin Carter's New York Times winning shot of the sudhanese child with a vulture in the background waiting for the child to die. Kevin obeyed the un order not to touch children (as disease was killing more than the famine and the well fed white journalists were contributing to it's spread, but i digress) public outcry against Kevin was so severe he committed suicide later the same year. This begs the question at what point do should we put down our cameras and help? Those who study people in extremes will often comment on how the mind/body goes into "autopilot" and does what it is trained to. I know a journalist who whilst in chile witnessed his girlfriend be being beaten by police in what had started as a peaceful protest. He kept taking pictures and then fled back to the press office before his film was destroyed - years and continents later he is still torn with the guilt, yet he knew that getting involved probably would have resulted in his own arrest and possible torture and death. I also had a high school teacher who hours after he witnessed his entire family executed by idi amin (spelling) went to work as he didn't know what else to do. Staged or not with text or not (and plenty of images rely on text.. it is called art or journalism) this image has suceeded in generating a reaction and imho it has therefore worked. debating the morals / ethics of taking the photo and the artistic merit of the image are perhaps better left to other forumns but i don't think it is fair to personally attack the photographer for their action or lack thereof.