no you can't but neither can you take risks with peoples lives using the justification of making money.
You must be joking. The list of for-profit activities that assist people in risking their lives is endless. Mountain climbing. Big game hunting. Bungie jumping. Skiing. SCUBA diving. Skydiving. Zip lines. Alpine slides. Water parks. Heck, we lose a few people a year on just plain old roller coasters.
The difference in this case is the expectation of risk is a bit different. To use an aviation analogy, going skydiving seems risky, but it's actual risk is not that great (to a certain extent--I say this as a USPA D-license holder). Flying in helicopter with the doors off and your feet hanging outside does not engender the same feelings of risk, but in fact may be far more risky than skydiving. Perception vs. reality.
And, sadly, because perception vs. reality is inverted here, the repercussions to the industry are also inverted. An activity that should only attract the most crazed thrill seeker instead becomes
too accessible. People don't realize the riskiness of the activity. If someone augers in while skydiving you'll get not much more than a shoulder shrug from the FAA, a la they had to have known what they were potentially getting into, nothing to see here, move along... Instead in this case we get "Something Must Be Done".
Mind you I do think the lack of an appropriate quick release on the harnesses was dumb. And if they had lost someone out of the helicopter because they were too stupid not to mess with a quick release (training is not rocket science: "Touch this when you are not on the ground/in the water and you will die.") it might have been chalked up the same way as a skydiving fatality as opposed to the situation that now exists.