In my ethics class, and in general when the topic of death comes up, I usually tell people that they can do anything that they want with my body after I'm dead. Kick it to the curb, feed it to cultures, mummify it, have it stuffed. Whatever, so long as it doesn't upset the living, in particular my friends and family (since they would be the ones most upset by the treatment of my body, I would imagine).
But there is a possibility that it would not be in my interest for my body to be fed to the vultures.... Cryonics. Should I take seriously the possibility, however remote, that in the future, my body could be dethawed and revived with more advanced medicine? The argument is a simple appropriation of Pascal's Wager. If I freeze my body and I can't be revised, I lose nothing. If I freeze my body and I can be revived, I gain an extended life. If I don't freeze my body, I'll never beneft. So no matter how small the odds, I should freeze my body.
Now there are externalities here that we must take into consideration, specifically cost. I would have to deprive myself a significant sum of money while I'm alive for the possibility of a future life. And who knows what the quality of my future life will be. I may simply be a decapitated head in a jar a la Futurama.
I also think it would be important to take other ethical obligations into consideration. For example, if I were to be frozen, my body would continue to generate a significant carbon footprint for the duration of my freeze because of the energy it would require to maintain my low temperature. I may not benefit if I don't freeze myself, but the environment may be harmed if I do.
In the end though, I don't think I'd like to be frozen. I think waking up in the future would be rather disorientating and I'd spend way too much on future Blu-Ray TV series compilations. ;)