This is a horrible plan for maximizing human survival rates. Downvoted.
Human brains are relatively unique in their size. You can of course do relevant research on other mammals, but higher primates (let alone exotic creatures like dolphins, whales, and elephants) are extremely expensive and attract the negative attention of animal rights activists. Horrible PR, even if you are doing humane (non-revival) experiments. Rodent research is a good idea, but many of the fundamental problems for human cryopreservation do not apply due to the drastic difference in brain size.
Waiting for people to pass through agonal death prior to experimenting on them is a pretty horrible research strategy too, because that adds complicating factors of zero relevance to the actual problem of cryonics damage. It's better than nothing though, and is both legally and ethically defensible. It should also be possible to do non-revival experiments on terminally ill patients who meet criteria for lethal medication.
All we need is to reduce damage sufficiently for future science to do its job. Revival experiments (except maybe for small critters like C Elegans, or for tissue samples) are a waste of time at this point in the tech tree. Eventually we'll get there with whole brain revival, but it will be many years before that happens, during which many people will die of old age.
Before we get to dolphins and chimps, it would be nice to know that we can revive a frozen mouse or sheep.
Among other things, it would be very reassuring evidence that we are on the right track for preservation to demonstrate successful revival in non-human mammals.
Here is my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong:
Cryonics is only allowed once a person is determined legally dead: when the heart stops beating.
One of the reasons why they have to be dead seems to be that the majority of the population consider cryonics to be a death-sentence, as there is no guarantee at this time that subjects can be revived - regardless of if there's a cure for whatever ailment caused a person's death.
It is difficult at this time to improve the revitalizing process as the patients - or clients - are incapable of surviving as their body was already in the process of shutting down, and we do not have the technology to bring them fully back.
Now, to some conjecturing.
We might be able to more reasonably test the effectiveness of procedures to revive current patients if we had healthier people, ones not yet at death's door.
Here's where the ethical dilemma hits home: we could use people who are in good health, here defined as 'not terminally-ill or otherwise dying from health complications in the near future,' who are already intending to end their life. Simply stated, those who are suicidal.
For all intensive purposes they would cease to exist, which would be part of the appeal to that subgroup. At this time there is a probability of them dying from the procedure, which should be ok as they were self-destructing anyway. And if they don't die, they get the chance to reflect on their life or go at it again. In this way their death would be more beneficial to the whole.
The benefits to this would be the additional research into the effects of cryonics on the body and how to develop a procedure to guarantee that you CAN be revived once put under.
I am aware of a couple of problems: legal complications, how to find willing participants, etc., and am thinking of ways to resolve that.
I've just been thinking about this for the past week or so and wanted additional insight. Thoughts?
***On Suicide
For those opposed to suicide: this idea does not encourage people to kill themselves. Rather, it provides those who are already intent upon ending their existence a means to do so more honorably.
In case people have not read it, I recommend Schopenhauer's Essay on Suicide, found here: http://www.egs.edu/library/arthur-schopenhauer/articles/essays-of-schopenhauer/on-suicide/