Couldn't care less tbh.
The whole thing is a distasteful two finger salute to all the cancer sufferers who have actually done something worthwhile and good with their lives.
Will their orphaned kids be supported through life by Hello magazine and the Sun?
I really don't see it like this at all. She was already in the public eye long before she was diagnosed, and I don't think it at all surprising that she chose to stay there. It was particularly useful as a way of raising funds to support her kids when she was gone, but I'm sure it gave her something else to concentrate on too when the outcome was inevitable.
If people didn't like her she was easily avoided. She didn't feature much at all in the sort of papers I read nor on the radio or TV programmes I was watching/listening to.
How you deal with cancer must be a very personal thing, and how you deal with death too. I wouldn't dream of criticising anybody for those choices. My father, when dying of leukaemia, was always a bit bemused by people telling him how brave he was. He just didn't see it, he said it wasn't a choice to have cancer, so his only contribution was to put up with it and get on with it. He didn't see that as brave, though I'd like to think I could be so stoical about it I can certainly see what he meant.
I don't feel that her choices have had any sort of impact on what my father went through, and I certainly don't feel offended on his behalf.
I do know women who have taken her story to heart and as a result taken more responsibility for making sure they get tested, I have no reason to doubt the claims that this is repeated nationally so there has been a benefit, albeit unintentional, to all this publicity.
I'm no fan, either of her or the programme which made her famous, but the vitriol she seems to attract amazes me. Surely indifference would be a more natural response if you didn't appreciate what she stood for, anything else smacks of caring rather too much despite protestation to the contrary.