(1). I find this exploitative and showcasing 'pain' for the sake of 'pain'. You can create a work of art that happens to include, say for example, vulgarity, wherein an old trucker cusses like a sailor every other word. Or you can pen a cheap and tawdry hack manuscript where every other word is sh*t and f*ck, just for shock value. The former is art, the latter is hack, imitation, slop. This photo shoot falls in the latter.
(2). I'm assuming each person consented to the "artist's" using their image in this work. That seems like a bogus consent to me. "I have an incurable disease, will forever need to take medicine and watch out for complications, and might die...oh yea, I can use this picture of your raw emotions, right?" You'd seem like a real witch if you said "no, I'd prefer you didn't." That's not true consent.
I don't like anything about this. My reservations have nothing to do with an aversion to emotion, or raw feeling. I love those things. It has to do with the cheap and campy means in which he accomplished it.