The stated motivation for allowing the media to cover the event is so that Jade can provide a sound financial legacy for her two sons. Jade’s wishes are that ‘the entire amount should be passed onto Bobby, five, and four-year-old Freddie’ (1), rather than going to her husband to be. This is a very admirable thing for her to do. She has prioritised the long term welfare of her children over making the day a private ceremony, which considering her condition would surely be a more comfortable move. Amongst others, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has come out to voice his support for Jade’s commitment to her family.

(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7896807.stm

It is not just Jade's responsibility to provide for the future of her children - it can be shared with their celebrity father, Jeff Brazier and her new husband, who is bound to sell a dozen stories when Jade passes away. If she really did not want to publicise her death, she should not have too. Is it really 'admirable'? Jade is providing for her children, but how much do two young boys need? Are they eating gold dust? Will they never have to work if she raises exorbitant amounts to be kept in trust for them? I think it would be more admirable to provide sensibly for her children and donate the rest to a cancer charity, so that tragedies like this need never occur again.

Jade Goody should not be criticised for using the public’s interest in her to make money. Whilst this situation is unique to a large extent, the process of celebrities selling the rights to cover their weddings has been around for several years. The fact that OK! and Living were willing to stump up such large sums of money to cover the wedding indicates that there is a very lucrative market in Jade’s plight. Those attacking Jade for selling the rights to her wedding are really attacking the culture of celebrity obsession, which is something beyond her control and thus not her fault.

The publicity that will be created by the media coverage of Jade’s wedding will raise awareness of cervical cancer. This may indirectly save many lives and allow UK women to be more aware of the risks the disease poses. Whilst this is not the primary motivation of Jade for selling her story, it presents a very positive bonus for everyone. Max Clifford, who is Jade’s publicist has said that ‘in the last few months, since last August when she announced her cervical cancer, there’s been a more than 20 per cent increase in young women all over Britain having cervical cancer smears’ (1). Clearly celebrity publicity is something that everyone takes very seriously; if this can simultaneously promote a good cause then all the better.

(1)http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and _entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5759499.ece

By her own admission Jade has always enjoyed being a celebrity: ‘I love my job. It's not that I love it for the fame or because I'm in the newspaper. I just love it’ (1). Therefore, the media coverage of her wedding will allow her one final chance to be seen in the public sphere, where she seems to be happiest. Most people will sympathise with the idea of terminally ill patients getting the chance to do something they love again before they die.

(1)http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/jade-goody-fame-and-misfortune-1059245.html

Your death is one of the most important times in your life. You don't have much control over when and how you die, so you should have the right to do what you like with the last days of your life as much as possible.

Our society has conditioned us to accept that your death is a private and special moment. Not so much anymore. It's being sold to the public now! As much as I agree that you should be able to do what you like with your last few precious days, I do not necessarily think you have 'a right to do what you like with the last days of your life'.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel sympathy for Jade and her family with the trauma that they are suffering - Infact I can't even begin to imagine the pain. However, it's beyond me as to why this one individual story is making national and in some cases international news. Not to offend anyone, but Jade Goody has made no more a contribution to society than anyone else has - with the exception of giving the masses soemthing to gawk at and and tabloid newspapers something to print. And yet she has the nation in a state of mourning, the prime minister even giving her a significant mention in a speech. What about the hundreds, possibly thousands of others who are dying and suffering the same ordeals?! Surely they deserve at the very least equal amounts of coverage and sympathy. I'm not attacking Jade through this statement, but a national culture which ensures that making an exhibition of your life can provide you with everything you need, and near enough a state funeral.

Jade does not believe that her illness makes her any different from the thousands of others who suffer from cancer. People with cancer can make their own decisions as to whether it is in newspapers or magazines etc but because she is a 'celebrity' she has the power to do that. Don't all celebrities in some way 'make an exhibition of their life'? Whether that be through reality television or autobiographies that sit on our bookshelves? An 'ordinary person' with cancer can sell their story to a magazine that deals with real life and we would not claim they are exploiting their death - we would simply feel sympathy for them and nothing else. And if it wasn't for people like Jade dealing with a real issue that plagues our society, our tabloids would only be filled with other rubbish that we can complain is not real news. Their pages have to be filled!

The less cynical may say that the monetary reasons are subordinate to the desire by the couple to be united in matrimony – what they can raise from the media is just a bonus. According to Jade herself, Jack wanted a wedding from the moment he found out she was terminally ill: ‘Right then we're getting married. You're a special woman, I love you and I would be honoured to call you my wife. And I don't care if it's just for a few weeks’ (1).

(1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article1145882 /Tearful-moment-Jade-Goody-fianc-Jack-Tweed-swap-engagement-rings.html

One could argue that Jade’s decision to get married is motivated primarily by monetary gain. If this is accepted, it would mean that she is using a traditional ceremony as a money-making scheme, making a mockery of the idea of marriage. This may be seen as offensive by some people, as it sends out all the wrong kinds of messages about what a marriage represents to the young and impressionable.

Jade Goody's deal with the media is to show her wedding day to Jack Tweed. They have both consented to the presence of OK! magazine and Living TV to be present.(In securing this deal she has made the financial future of her sons far more secure.) By agreeing to this they will have more control of what is published /broadcast than say a load of "paparazzi photographers" . We will not be witnessing her death, we will be able to see pictures of her and her husband sharing their happiest day and I think they deserve that.

Despite consent being given by the couple for the coverage of the wedding, the need for the media to be present at such an emotionally ambiguous time beggars belief. A market is clearly there, but the ethics of that market are cloudy. It seems voyeuristic for members of the public to be entertained by witnessing a dying woman marry her boyfriend. This development marks another step in the worrying trend of public intrusion into private lives, and is comparable to the broadcasting of Craig Ewert’s assisted suicide and the ‘live birth’ in 2006.

This follows the development that Jack Straw has personally intervened in reviewing Jack Tweed’s bail conditions. Tweed was released early from his 18-month assault sentence in January, having been convicted of attacking a teenager with a golf club. Previously it was stipulated that he would have to return to prison by 7pm after Sunday’s ceremony; he will now have until 3pm on Monday. This shows a complete lack of impartiality on the part of Jack Straw, with statements from him doing little to address concerns about favouritism. He said ‘It is crucial that offenders are treated equally within the rules regardless of the publicity surrounding their case but I was satisfied that it was reasonable to allow this’ (1), with a spokesperson adding: ‘Jack has enormous sympathy for Jade Goody and her family at this time’ (2). These two quotes make a mockery of the idea of one justice for everyone – does sympathy from a political figure now mean that you can pull strings at the Justice Department? Allowing wanton publicity of private concerns may compromise key rational tenets of our society, pulling on emotions to the detriment of common sense. Jade Goody should certainly not be allowed to exploit her own death if it means compromising the concept of impartial law. (1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article577 2241.ece (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article577 2241.ece