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

[Blobbenstein]

I think using humans for testing, for money, is worse than using animals. It probably wouldn't be the rich, or well off who would apply for testing.
Soon they will be using prisoners, I wouldn't be surprised.

I remember a few years, some human test subjects had terrible side effects. If humans become the only animal tested upon, there will be more victims, and deaths.

A severely affected volunteer, Mohammed Abdalla, a 28-year old who said he had hoped to set his brother up in business in Egypt, was described as having suffered a ballooned head. This led to his description as being similar to the "Elephant Man". A volunteer also lost his fingers and toes as a result of being injected with the drug.[20]

All of the men were reported to have experienced cytokine release syndrome resulting in angioedema, swelling of skin and mucous membranes, akin to the effects of the complement cascade in severe allergic reaction. The patients were treated with corticosteroids to reduce inflammation, and plasma-exchange to attempt to remove TGN1412 from their circulation. The treating doctors confirmed in August 2006 that all six men had suffered from a cytokine storm, and that, paradoxically, the men's white blood cells had vanished almost completely several hours after administration of TGN1412.[4]

According to a press release from 5 July 2006 on the North West London Hospitals NHS Trust website, where the men were treated, the patients continued to improve and "five of them went home within a month of the incident, while one patient remained in hospital until 26 June, when he also went home."[21] However, Head of pharmacology at University College London Trevor Smart has suggested that the men may never fully recover, and may suffer long-term disruption to their immune systems.[18]

etc...
TGN1412 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Blobbenstein]

What about a system whereby the only way you(rich or poor) could have medication would be if you took part in a drugs trial every x number of years?

I think that would be a fair way to end animal use in testing.

 

[RascalsMom]

Use people on death row. They're just sitting there, useless.

 

[Scorpius]

I take medications because I'll save more animals as an alive vegan than as a dead vegan. If won't taker medications that come in a gel cap, though.

 

[AeryFairy]

I'm not particularly interested in being a martyr for the cause. I'll avoid things if there's an alternative (e.g. without a gel cap, or without lactose), but if my life and health is at risk, I'm taking the medication.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I meant to add to my last post that I used to donate to the Dr Hadwen Trust when I was regularly taking medication to try to offset the harm involved in making the medications. Other vegans I have known have done the same thing. There isn't really a great solution whilst animal tested meds are so widely used as far as I can see.

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.

The Vegan Society isn't a cult and vegans can decide for themselves what to do regarding animal tested medicine so I don't see why they should have the definitive answer to every scenario a vegan might face.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I meant to add to my last post that I used to donate to the Dr Hadwen Trust when I was regularly taking medication to try to offset the harm involved in making the medications.

What do the Hadwen Trust propose as an alternative to animal testing?

 

[KLS52]

I take two medications but I do feel a twinge of guilt. It does feel hypocritical to me. I like Scorpius' take on it.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think we should be honest. We don't want to die, and at the moment we use animals..

The point of science is to discover the unknown. I don't see how we can do without animals for research. Computer simulations, for example, only deal with what we know at the moment.

 

[KLS52]

I think we should be honest.

Absolutely. I'm wondering, does this fall under the definition of speciesism?
I guess the line is, we need certain medications to live. We don't need to eat/use animals/products to live.

 

[Moll Flanders]

What do the Hadwen Trust propose as an alternative to animal testing?

They want to fund new research committed to advancing biomedical science without the use of animals as they believe this is the only way forward towards technological innovation and to get data relevant to human beings. They think the results of animal based research isn't always translatable to human beings, as well as being unethical.

What's the problem? - Dr Hadwen Trust
What's the solution? - Dr Hadwen Trust

 

[wedigfood]

No I wouldn't. I would ask them, how important it is to them and what they would do to save the life of an animal.

 

[ledboots]

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.

I assume the Vegan Society uses the word "practical" at times because "practicable" isn't a commonly used word these days.

And from your link, I think the Society is pretty clear on the medication question:

"Vegans avoid using animals 'as far as practical and possible'. In most countries medicines have to pass safety tests before they can be prescribed; and these tests are routinely carried out on non-human animals. If you suffer from a medical condition you may currently have no practical alternative to taking such prescribed medicines. Looking after yourself is important if you wish to be an effective vegan advocate.

Talk to your doctor about your concerns regarding animal ingredients and animal testing in medication. Ask your pharmacist (chemist or druggist) for possible alternative medicines your doctor can prescribe that are free of animal ingredients such as gelatine, lactose or stearates.

We still live in a non-vegan world. You may not be able to find suitable medicines free of animal ingrediets. Charities like the Dr Hadwen Trust are working hard to end the use of non-human animals in safety testing. Yet this will not happen overnight and in the meantime you know your own situation best - so together with your doctor, decide what is best for your own health. Never stop taking prescribed medicines without first talking to a medical professional."

 

[Bite Size Vegan]

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.

yes. this. my stance is that once we stop murdering 15- billion beings every year, we won't be so hard pressed to find new ad profitable ways to use their byproducts.

cut it off at the source. don't sweat the small stuff.

 

[prioritarian]

So you're suggesting that its okay to use the animal derived products so long as the exploitation occurred in the past?

My comment was directed at drugs that are not animal-derived. And while most drugs are associated with indirect animal death so are the vast majority (all?) of vegan foods. In fact, I believe eating a slice of bread is less ethically defensible than using a chitosan dressing to stop blood loss (shrimp) or getting an influenza vaccine (eggs).

PS: I eat bread.

So then, is animal exploitation okay in veganism if the outcome of that exploitation saves lives in some way?

"Okay" in this context is a loaded term, flyinsnail. I personally support non-trivial animal exploitation when the alternative results in greater "adjusted*" suffering.

 

[Second Summer]

Why is it not possible and impracticable?

I already explained it to you, but I will try again.

1. Life-saving medication is by definition necessary in order to save the life of the patient.
   
2. According to the definition, veganism is "a way of living".

1 and 2 together make it acceptable for a vegan patient to take the medication.

Assuming we're instead talking about medication that is not necessarily life-saving, maybe just merely saving an arm and a leg, then the "practicable" part would surely still make it acceptable to take the medication. Sure, it's possible to sacrifice an arm and a leg - some groups do so for religious reasons, and some can't afford the medication etc. But it's not practicable (i.e. feasible) to forgo of the medication in any sense that is meaningful in this context.

For reference:
feasible: possible and practical to do easily or conveniently.

 

[Andy_T]

I think using humans for testing, for money, is worse than using animals.

No, as they can decide themselves whether they want to participate in the test or not. The animals (or the death row inmates, as was otherwise suggested - likely against their will) can not.

 

[Andy_T]

PS: I eat bread.

No problem. Simply ask for the ingredients or bake it yourself.

 

[Blobbenstein]

No, as they can decide themselves whether they want to participate in the test or not. The animals (or the death row inmates, as was otherwise suggested - likely against their will) can not.

but why would they decide to be subjects of a test?

Would you be a test subject to replace animals?

 

[Calliegirl]

I was invited to join a clinical trial by a doctor, but declined due to the possibility of getting a placebo. If they had wanted me to try out the real drug (the ingredients were vegan), I would have done it. I don't see anything wrong with testing on willing humans.

Why would I do it? Because the present available medications weren't working very well and I was hoping the new one might work a little better. But, since I would have had to stop all other treatments, I couldn't take the chance on getting the placebo and therefore getting zero relief for the duration of the testing. I think it was 6 months to a year long.