are we still vegan if we use medications tested on animals or contain animal by-products?

[wedigfood]

Can you still consider yourself vegan if you take life saving medications that have been tested on animals or that contain substances like lactose that are used in some medications as stabilizers.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I think there is a thread on here about this subject but the general consensus amongst vegans is that we live in a very unvegan world so we have to live by certain parameters. I usually try and avoid most medications as I am chemically sensitive but I would absolutely take them if I needed to.

 

[Calliegirl]

This falls under the 'as far as is possible and practical" part of the definition. Things like honey can easily be avoided or substituted, pharmaceuticals on the other hand, are required by law to be tested on animals and it isn't usually possible to find a vegan alternative.

 

[Tom L.]

^^^ What Calliegirl said.

 

[flyingsnail]

This falls under the 'as far as is possible and practical" part of the definition. Things like honey can easily be avoided or substituted, pharmaceuticals on the other hand, are required by law to be tested on animals and it isn't usually possible to find a vegan alternative.

It is, at least as defined by the Vegan Society, "as far as possible and practicable". The avoidance of medication and vaccines is both possible and practicable so, at least according to this definition, medication and vaccines derived from animals should be avoided. But even if it was "practical", why is avoiding medicines and vaccines impractical where as avoiding trace animal ingredients practical?

In the vegan world is their a caveat for animal exploitation if it benefits you? If so....what about someone with iron-deficiency anemia that isn't responding to supplements. Is it okay for them to eat animal based foods containing heme-iron? Honey benefits some people with allergies, is it okay then?

 

[Clueless Git]

Aye, Callie nailed it in one.

We might as well worry over if it's vegan to breathe when we know that air has cow farts mixed in.

 

[Second Summer]

It is, at least as defined by the Vegan Society, "as far as possible and practicable". The avoidance of medication and vaccines is both possible and practicable so, at least according to this definition, medication and vaccines derived from animals should be avoided. But even if it was "practical", why is avoiding medicines and vaccines impractical where as avoiding trace animal ingredients practical?

Here's a little something that might aid your understanding:

Think of practical as a synonym of useful, and practicable as a synonym of doable and feasible. Another important distinction is that practical can apply to people (per definition three) and skills (definition two), whereas practicable typically applies to plans or actions.

More: Practicable vs. practical - Grammarist

It goes without saying that forgoing of medication which is deemed necessary for one's survival is not really commonly considered "doable". If that was doable, then so would forgoing of food, water and oxygen.

Edited to add: Also note that it says "possible and practicable". And also: "a way of living".

(From Vegan Society website: "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.")

 

[BronwynMendoza]

Just a few questions folks

Do different companies use different ingredients for the same medication?

Would it be worth my while asking my doctor?

I have to take immune system suppressant drugs and I'm pretty sure they have some non vegan ingredients, it makes me feel really terrible knowing all medications are tested on animals and that there isn't a way round it apart from stopping the meds (don't think I'd last long and that thought is very scary to me).

Just thought if I can at least take an alternative brand that didn't contain animal products Id be doing something to lessen the harm caused.

 

[Calliegirl]

Just a few questions folks

Do different companies use different ingredients for the same medication?

Would it be worth my while asking my doctor?

I have to take immune system suppressant drugs and I'm pretty sure they have some non vegan ingredients, it makes me feel really terrible knowing all medications are tested on animals and that there isn't a way round it apart from stopping the meds (don't think I'd last long and that thought is very scary to me).

Just thought if I can at least take an alternative brand that didn't contain animal products Id be doing something to lessen the harm caused.

Yes, different companies do use different fillers, which is usually where the non-vegan ingredients are. You can find the ingredient lists online, call the manufacturer and ask, or find it on the manufacturers insert if your pharmacist includes it with your prescription.

 

[flyingsnail]

It goes without saying that forgoing of medication which is deemed necessary for one's survival is not really commonly considered "doable". If that was doable, then so would forgoing of food, water and oxygen.

Firstly, I'm aware of the definition of the respective words and they have different meanings....yet people routinely quote the phrase using the word "practical". But why does that go without saying? It is feasible to forgo medical treatment....it just has negative consequences. If the idea here is that its okay to exploit animals if there is some tangible benefit to ones health from doing so why are vegans against the use of animals in research? And, as I asked before, would someone that eats oysters or beef because they have iron-deficiency anemia still be vegan if they benefited, health wise, from the heme-iron in these foods? And what about psychological benefits? Is there a caveat for them as well? By considering an action with a negative impact on health impracticable....you open a huge can of worms.

Edited to add: Also note that it says "possible and practicable". And also: "a way of living".

Yes it does, but avoiding medical treatment is certainly possible....people do it all the time. For example, some religious groups avoid a variety of medical treatments. If they can do it, why not vegans?

 

[yakherder]

Vegan or not, anti vaxxers should be quarantined.

 

[Second Summer]

But why does that go without saying? It is feasible to forgo medical treatment....it just has negative consequences. If the idea here is that its okay to exploit animals if there is some tangible benefit to ones health from doing so why are vegans against the use of animals in research? And, as I asked before, would someone that eats oysters or beef because they have iron-deficiency anemia still be vegan if they benefited, health wise, from the heme-iron in these foods? And what about psychological benefits? Is there a caveat for them as well? By considering an action with a negative impact on health impracticable....you open a huge can of worms.


Yes it does, but avoiding medical treatment is certainly possible....people do it all the time. For example, some religious groups avoid a variety of medical treatments. If they can do it, why not vegans?

The question in the OP was in regards to life-saving medication. Forgoing such medication is not a way of living, it's a way of dying. It's not possible, and it's certainly not practicable (feasible) to live without life-saving medication.

I get the impression you read the Vegan Society's veganism definition in a similar manner to how the Devil would read the Bible.

 

[prioritarian]

I get the impression you read the Vegan Society's veganism definition in a similar manner to how the Devil would read the Bible.

Or how Saint Irenaeus would read the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[prioritarian]

Can you still consider yourself vegan if you take life saving medications that have been tested on animals or that contain substances like lactose that are used in some medications as stabilizers.

I don't understand the reasoning behind avoiding a drug that was developed and/or tested via animal research many years ago. How does this kind of hyper-symbolic veganism decrease exploitation/cruelty?


In fact, this debate just made me crave a non-barnivore approved double mountain india red ale.

 

[ledboots]

Can you still consider yourself vegan if you take life saving medications that have been tested on animals or that contain substances like lactose that are used in some medications as stabilizers.

Yes.

 

[flyingsnail]

The question in the OP was in regards to life-saving medication. Forgoing such medication is not a way of living, it's a way of dying. It's not possible, and it's certainly not practicable (feasible) to live without life-saving medication.

Why is it not possible and impracticable? As mentioned, there are groups of people that reject a good deal of medical intervention....are these groups some how doing something impossible? The risk of death doesn't make an action impossible or impracticable, for example when you decide to drive your car in the morning instead of walking you are increasing your risk of injury and/or death that morning. Does that mean that driving car is not possible and not feasible? I would hope not. Also most medications are intend on, in the aggregate, saving lives so are you suggesting that the only animal-derived medications that are appropriate for vegans are the ones that will, in the moment, save your life or are you suggesting that anything that can in the aggregate save lives is appropriate for vegans? If the former, then most animal derived vaccines and medications wouldn't be vegan since they merely lower aggregate risk of death in a population. On the other hand, if the latter it seems clear that it opens up the consumption of meat, dairy, etc if there is a medical benefit from eating these foods.

I also have trouble understanding how vegans are against using animals in research, but then have no issue using the products of this research when it benefits their health.

I get the impression you read the Vegan Society's veganism definition in a similar manner to how the Devil would read the Bible.

I'm not sure what this means, I'm simply employing the definition as its given instead of making ad-hoc embellishments. If the Vegan Society thinks that the use of animal derived products is okay when there is a medical benefit from doing so then the definition should be changed to reflect that, no matter how much you twist the current definition I don't see how you can get this as a consequence from it.

 

[flyingsnail]

I don't understand the reasoning behind avoiding a drug that was developed and/or tested via animal research many years ago. How does this kind of hyper-symbolic veganism decrease exploitation/cruelty?

So you're suggesting that its okay to use the animal derived products so long as the exploitation occurred in the past? So, for example, since all the dead animals I can buy at the grocery store died before they got there it should be okay for me to eat them? After all avoiding those dead animals doesn't reduce animal suffering since they are already dead. Of course meat production and the use of animals in research is ongoing, by boycotting them you reduce future demand. The only difference between the two cases is that research can produce results that save human lives. So then, is animal exploitation okay in veganism if the outcome of that exploitation saves lives in some way?

Also, I would add, that some medicines are animal derived products in themselves. That is, their production depends on the use of animals.

 

[wedigfood]

The answer to the question I originally proposed. I consider myself a vegan although since my parents are still alive and I have a wife and two daughters I would take the life saving medication. If my parents had passed away and I didn't have children nor was I married I would try as many different alternatives to taking non-vegan medicine as possible. If I died, so be it. If I asked myself this question say, 20 years ago, when I was 39, I might of had a different answer.

 

[Moll Flanders]

Here is some more information if anyone is interested.

Medicines | The Vegan Society
DHT Homepage - Dr Hadwen Trust
Grassroots Veganism with Jo Stepaniak

I used to donate to the Dr Hadwen Trust as it is a charity trying to end the use of non-human animals in testing.

The answer to the question I originally proposed. I consider myself a vegan although since my parents are still alive and I have a wife and two daughters I would take the life saving medication. If my parents had passed away and I didn't have children nor was I married I would try as many different alternatives to taking non-vegan medicine as possible. If I died, so be it.

Okay.

I wonder what some vegans would say to a person thinking about trying a vegan lifestyle. Would you ask them if they were willing to die in order to be vegan?

 

[flyingsnail]

Medicines | The Vegan Society

I find this a bit amusing, even people at the Vegan Society seem to get the Vegan Society's definition wrong. Its "as far as possible and practicable", not practical. Perhaps someone at the Vegan Society should update their definition? Though....a switch to "as far as possible and practical" would have some interesting consequences. For example, is it really practical to avoid trace animal ingredients in commercial foods? Not sure how.

But they really didn't answer anything here, instead it seems like a vague statement to avoid liability.