Very sensible liblady. I don't think this a question of legality, however although several countries do enforce legislation protecting an individual's privacy. Privacy at the moment of death (even when you have consented to being televised doing something dangerous) I would suggest would be covered by such legislation. I have no idea whether such laws exist in the US, but they do elsewhere.
I think it's more a question of personal and professional ethics; those of the channel heads that have to weigh-up whether or not to broadcast. I don't know how it was handled in the US, but I became very upset at (still do, actually) at repeated showings, for no possible journalistic reason, of the planes crashing into the WTC. There is a BIG difference in showing something that has just happened for the information of viewers and showing something dramatic or traumatic for entertainment purposes. Even then, showing something for informative reasons must be tempered with a consideration of just how much the public has a right to see. I do not agree with the libertarian position that because something has happened everyone has the right to see it. There are other rights in play (the right to respect, privacy, etc) that should also be taken into account and, in this case, I believe such rights were ignored.
Shame on those broadcasters who showed it. Let's name and shame them.
I accuse Antena 3, Telecinco, La Sexta and RTVA in Spain of infringing this poor guy and his family's right to privacy and dignity. Anyone else care to extend the list?