The music label is in the business of selling the product to the maximum extent possible, if the label feels that they can make more money doing it that way then they should have the right to do so, if the artist feels differently then they should sign with another label.
No, artists or surviving family members should have the choice of releasing special edition albums. It is wrong of the music labels to even think about doing something with someone elses music without their consent. If the artists say no to a special edition than the labels will have to take no as the answer.
Music labels have a long history of exploiting recording artists. If an artist doesn't want to have a "special edition" released of an album, the music label should not release it, or should find a compromise version that is acceptable to the artists. It's not unfair to release something that everyone will think the artist approves without the artist's permission.
I don't mind if people re-release albums in order to get more money or to put out a more polished product. The problem is that albums should not be released again if the artist does not agree with it. It was their creative work and they should have a say with what happens to it.
One thing about the recording industry is that musical acts often have much less freedom than is thought. It seems to be wrong that they would have their work distributed when it is against their wishes, even if the company technically owns the albums. Personally, I would have no problem.