Is it exploiting Jett to criticize the cult over his death? My short answer is yes, or at least maybe. But is it wrong to do it? I'd say no. In fact, it's obligatory. If you are criticizing an organization because, among other things, it discourages the use of medicine, and the exact practice you are criticizing results in the highly publicized death of a member, it would be absolutely ridiculous to choose that moment, when the public is paying most attention, suddenly to fall silent and quit talking about it. Where it is exploitation is if you use the victim solely for a cause and treat them as an instrument, rather than a human being in their own right. If you use someone, and it harms them or doesn't help them, you're exploiting them. Jett is dead. Therefore, he can't be benefited by anything we do. So it is, at least in a sense, exploitation to use him as an example to bolster the argument that Scientology's hostility to psychiatric medication is dangerous and deadly. But it doesn't harm him. The action is effectively neutral to Jett. It is, however, harmful to his family, John Travolta and Kelly Preston. It tends to defame them, and make their public image worse. Therefore, we should at least try to stick to the truth, balancing this against the fact that the public is interested in this situation right now, and that we have only limited information available. What's most important, though, is that what we do with this, in terms of exploiting it, should be aimed at useful ends. I think some useful ends are attaching a high cost to the cult's evil and stupid attacks on medicine, such that they pay for it, discouraging people from joining the cult or using their dangerous methods, making Scientologists think about whether CCHR's bullshit is really a good idea, etc. It should reduce the chances that people are in the future subjected to Scientology's deadly quackery. An example of previous exploitation of a death would be that of Lisa McPherson. Some exploitation of this was good and ethical, for example, Jeff Jacobsen's excellent site full of as much complete information as he could get together, making the truth available to the public about what was done to Lisa McPherson. Some was wrong, when it simply used the image of Lisa McPherson to attack Scientology in general without contributing to the distribution of accurate information. I'll note that nobody has been killed in the specific way Lisa McPherson was killed since that event. I believe the exploitation of Lisa McPherson's death has, in fact, saved other people from similar abuse. The cost of killing people like this was made so high for Scientology that they would now rather avoid subsequent occurrences. It's not possible to be completely perfect when you're acting with incomplete information. But I think the exploitation of an event like this is absolutely necessary. It should be aimed at preventing future occurrences, though, not just attacking the cult. For the differences between these approaches, compare what we're doing to CCHR's mindless use of attack propaganda against psychiatry based on anything bad any psychiatrist in the world has ever done, even when it's totally irrelevant to what they're supposedly criticizing psychiatry for. Here, if the autopsy bears it out, Jett Travolta was a victim of a specific Scientology belief, i.e. delusional hatred of psychiatry, and a specific Scientology practice, the refusal to use "psychiatric" medicine, even when necessary for some physical condition like seizures. The exploitation of the event should be used to advance the attacks on these specific practices. This article might be somewhat controversial or at least likely to attract trolls. I hope it's domed if it degenerates rapidly.