Alcoholism and the destruction of lives is a depressingly normal story. It's hardly 'dirty laundry' (another term of shaming) in the context provided - the author wasn't point-scoring off her dead husband, and you weren't forced to read the article. Relationships have ugly sides, and by exposing that, we help people better understand their own.
Also, it's an opinion piece, in a section called The Opinion Pages with the section title Opinionator, and even the domain has 'opinion' in it. An opinion journal would be pretty dull if it steered away from social taboos. People read opinion pieces to get different views on things (sometimes heatedly emotional), outside of the supposedly dispassionate journalistic norm.
Her story also might help other people watching loved ones deteriorate take action before it's too late, or may help people grieve following the death of a loved one under similar circumstances. This alone may be sufficient justification for her actions.
It's very clear that you were trying to shame writing about this taboo, at least in your initial comment. You weren't 'simply stating', but were making value judgements - the writing was 'twisted', and she was trying to make herself feel better by shitting on her husband. She may well be in a poor mental state, but it's been six years since the guy died. How long do you want to keep up "don't speak ill of the dead"? By maintaining that taboo in an ongoing manner, you're preventing people from getting better by talking about the bad things they encountered with the deceased person.