> Up till this I had been in two minds about whether to go for head-only
> or full-body suspension. It now seems that full-body is the better
> option, warranting the extra cost. Thanks.
Due to prolonged process of dying prior to suspension in essentially every patient the periphery (due to body's built-in protection mechanisms) gets very limited blood flow for days -- it thus 1) suffers extensive damage 2) thus gets very very patchy cryoprotectant perfusion. While the most recent best-case(!) ischaemic (rabbit) models seem to imply even neuros are getting a very rough ride, this need not to remain so in the future (if cryonics is part of euthanasia in ICU setting). Single-organ vs. multi-organ cryoprotection is intrinsically much simpler to achieve. (Though I am not sure of this) neuros achieve faster and better perfusion by clamping off the rest of the body. Additional (admittedly minor) point with whole-body: cracking. Financial reason: neuros are cheaper, since whole-bodys don't utilize dewar volume well.
Since the technology necessary for suspension can essentially generate a body or a model thereof which is essentially undistinguishable from the real thing, whole-body basically doesn't make sense. Ymmv.