Ofri Raviv, in his comment to the question, wrote: "[T]his site is about cognitive science, and not the history of cognitive science." His answer here aims in the same direction.
I disagree with that.
No science is cast in stone. It has been repeatedly shown for past stages in the evolution of many scientific fields, how the concepts, research questions and results of a science are dependent on social circumstances and ideologies that have grown, among other things, from that science's history. Understanding that history is one necessity for the advancement of a science.
We are dealing here with cognitive sciences in its entirety, not only with results of its research. For me, everything that helps understand and advance cognitive sciences is on topic, even when it comes to a researcher's private life. An example (that has been considered in many publications) would be how Carl Gustav Jung's romantic relationships with his patients influenced his theories and his clinical practice.
Thus, any and all aspects of a scientist's life might become a topic for a valid question here on SE, but they must be phrased that way. A question after a private aspect of a researcher's life, is clearly off-topic. A sample ontopic rephrasing of this question would be:
"How did Daniel Wegner's cancer and impending death influence and change his later research?" (this is fictitious, I have no idea what Wegner died of and if he knew he would die)
An answer to such a question would be speculative, of course, but I don't believe that empirical evidence is the only relevant information for someone interested in this field. A question and answer that intend to help understanding or prepare for future research are at the core of what I expect from this site. If I want hard evidence, I turn to Google Scholar.