Resolutions, you say I'm not very merry - not on this thread, no. I wonder why?
Yes, the man's living conditions ARE the issue. Do you think they would have made the same decision had he been living in a palace? (that's not a rhetorical question, by the way)
Of course they were unfit to be in that position and they made that decision because they themselves were ethical and emotional morons; that goes without saying. But it's obvious that they took one look at his place and decided based on his living conditions that he 'wasn't worth saving', so their appalling judgement was made based on his living conditions.
Now, aren't you guilty of doing exactly what you've accused me of: jumping to presumptuous conclusions? You say that I have jumped to conclusions about the man's family based on paltry information about them. I actually asked in my OP 'is the family to blame?', but you read it as 'the family is to blame'. I said that his family had 'apparently' neglected him - i.e. it appears to be the case, but may not be. But you've read it as 'the family is guilty of neglect'. Some people on this thread have bothered to offer suggestions but you've just thrown in accusations.
I then later explained in some detail very personal reasons why this story is of interest to me. Fair enough some other people misunderstood me at the outset, as did you, but you could then have changed your argument in the light of the fresh information I've presented. But you've chosen not to. So why exactly are you still on this thread?
I'm getting rather bored with this, now, I had thought this conversation was moving on. Thanks to those who offered well-considered opinions.