The ballistic parachute is a viable option of flight safety that I won't want to miss.
If I were regularly crossing very large expanses of rough ocean, or totally unlandable terrain in a single engined wheel plane, I would probably share this view. The success of the parachute use in this event is obvious, though I am not convinced that the aircraft could not have been equally successfully ditched, particularly considering the unstable aircraft position immediately following splashdown.
Personally though, after 7000 hours of single engine flying over 40 years, I have never once wished I'd had a parachute at all (even for the times I was required to wear one). I'm quite happy to have saved the cost and weight of an "installed parachute" for all those flights, by choosing to not fly a parachute configured aircraft. I know that there are many pilots who consider the cost and weight of the parachute worth it, and they do not complain about those costs, and good on them. But for the many pilots who struggle with the cost of flying, I don't believe that a parachute adds safety or piece of mind in proportion to it's cost. But that's a personal opinion.
Knowing that the body's "limits" for deceleration are 45G forward, and 15G downward, I would still plan a "fly on" crash, rather than "drop on", as long as I had an open, near horizontal area - water included.