Debates have raged on for years concerning the controversial topic of animal rights. Animal rights activists believe animals must be saved from the "cruelties" of humans. A major concern of the animal rights movement is the experimentation done upon monkeys, dogs, guinea pigs, rabbits, and other animals. Approximately 50 million mammals a year are killed because of companies manufacturing cosmetics and household products as well as scientific institutions researching medicines (PETA). Governments enforce laws requiring product testing to ensure consumer safety.

There is a simple solution for those who think experimentation on animals is evil. Stop all experimenting on animals. Companies must still have testing subjects to make sure products are safe. No problem. In place of the animals, use elderly humans who have become a financial burden upon themselves and their families. Once Grandma or Grandpa, Mom or Dad become to old to safely live by themselves, send them to an experimental laboratory. There will no longer be expensive bills for a rest home, home care, or hospitals. All expenses will be paid for by the manufacturer sponsoring the research.

Testing would be more accurate. When performed on animals, there is always the possibility of a difference in the specimen's biology so the test's outcome would be different to the outcome on humans. This is proven by the fact penicillin kills guinea pigs, aspirin kills cats, and arsenic which is toxic to humans does not cause cancer in other species. Drugs react differently to different species. Using actual humans for testing diminishes the possibility of incorrect results.

When Acute Toxicity Tests are executed, a substance is forced into the person's stomach through a tube or hole sliced into their throat. The results of the testing, which usually causes convulsions, bleeding from the eyes, and finally death, will be comparable with other humans.

When Eye Irritancy Tests are performed, powdered substances are dropped into the eye. There will be a much higher probability that the types of ulcerations, deteriorations, and blindness occurring to the elderly specimens will affect the human population the same. This will help the scientists make a better and safer product.

Of course, this solution is absolutely ridiculous. But why? The elderly person's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be taken away: This is absolutely certain. It is practically impossible to make the connection here with animals. There are many philosophical arguments over whether animals actually have these rights; however, the question is left unanswered with the exception of decisions based on opinion.

The point striking emotion into this solution is the horrible agony and devastating pain that would occur to the people being experimented upon. Is the torture of the elderly for the good of a soap or oven cleaner humane? The whole problem revolves around unnecessary suffering. When it comes to animal experimentation, the philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated, "The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" (Pojman 563). Animals feel pain, and when experiments are performed upon them, they suffer just as much as a human would. This is the cruel part, this is immoral.

Other less expensive alternatives to animal testing being both more merciful and accurate exist. These include such things as the use of cell cultures, tissue cultures, and corneas from eye banks. In addition, sophisticated computer and mathematical models can be used. Obviously, ceasing animal experimentation is the logical solution. It is time to stop making animals into involuntary martyrs.