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.
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?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?
More: Practicable vs. practical - GrammaristThink 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?Edited to add: Also note that it says "possible and practicable". And also: "a way of living".
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.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?
I get the impression you read the Vegan Society's veganism definition in a similar manner to how the Devil would read the Bible.
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.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.
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.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'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.I get the impression you read the Vegan Society's veganism definition in a similar manner to how the Devil would read the Bible.
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?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?
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.
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.