This methodology however is flawed. Proponents of animal testing fail to consider the number of animals that experience reduced life span or reduced quality of life resulting in the confined environment in which they must live while testing. Further, proponents of testing fail to identify what types of tests are safe and which are not. The very fact that animals must be used to test something suggests that some danger is always imminent, thus the life or quality of life of animals tested is always at risk. It does not matter whether that risk is small or very large. All risk is worthy of consideration and notice.

Unfortunately those whose religious practices forbid the use of animals as experimental tools often go to extreme measures to prove their vantage is correct. They consistently rely on moral and ethically clauses that may not be universally accepted. One way to get around this is through a process of communication and collaboration, where all parties agree to meet and come to an acceptable resolution satisfying the needs of both parties.

With respect to animal rights there is a middle ground that can be acceptable to both opponents and proponents of animal testing. This middle ground is not extreme; rather, it would force animal testing companies to engage in "humane reform" (Regan, 688). This type of reform is one that allows each party to identify what practices are safe and generally well tolerated and which practices must be abolished due to their nature.

Many persons strongly oppose the use of animals for scientific, sport, vanity and other forms of testing. On the other hand, many proponents insist the use of animals is necessary to promote better quality of life outcomes for human beings, especially humans that benefit from experiments that lead to safer medical products and even safer cosmetic products. Because each party has equal ground, they can build

This could lead to open communication and discussion.
Conclusions

Resolution takes best of both sides and offers conformity. To satisfy all parties in this case example, it is necessary that each party compromise so a uniform decision that is acceptable to both parties is realized and expedited. In this case, opponents of animal testing could agree to tests involving scientific experiments that may save lives or promote the discovery of vaccines or other medicines that may prove life saving to humans. The proponents of testing can agree to use products without endangering the animal or at the very least, provide the animals with a more natural habitat and provide animals with some form of acceptable pain control, so that if they suffer ill effects from testing, the animal will not pass with pain. Pain control is an essential ingredient to successful exploration using animals.

The proponents could also give a little, agreeing only to test certain groups of animals, perhaps those that are already diagnosed with chronic illness, for sport or for vanity uses. They can also agree to provide adequate food and nourishment and comfortable surroundings to animals kept in captivity for testing, whether the testing is harmful in nature or not. Because these uses are not critical to improving the quality of life of people, they may agree to conduct such testing as minimally as possible under close supervision by an animal rights advocate to ensure the needs and wishes of both parties are satisfied at some level.

Bibliography

Regan, T. (1938), Religion and animal rights,

Animal Rights