So, I’ve been thinking about that for a while now, and I really don’t know what I would do. I just figured here would be the best place to share.
I’m completely against animal testing. But I’ve been wondering what would be my reaction if I found out I’m sick. Not a little sick, a “might lead to death” sick, but, that could be easily cured by drugs that have been tested on animals. Would I take it, or would I try all the other natural options, with the risk of serious complications ?!
It would be kind of hypocrite of me to take the drugs knowing that I’m against animal testing. But, in the same time, not taking the drugs is a really huge risk to take.
Or the same situation but with a sickness that doesn’t kill you but for example, make you lose sight. Your life isn’t in danger but the complication is pretty huge.
Does anyone else ever thought about that ?
Have you come to a theoretical answer ? ( theoretical because of course, we never know what we would do facing the actual situation ).
The strongest trees are the ones still standing to share their nutrients to the damaged trees after the storm.. Sometimes there are necessary evils – if you have no alternative, you must survive. That’s not immoral as long as you survive to continue to do good, sweetheart.
I had a recent debate about this with Vegan Sidekick on FB and have read all the responses on here now. First off, I don’t know how much I like the reasoning of “if I was dead, I would be of no use in helping more animals” – This kind of reasining A.K.A. “for the greater good” is the reasoning used for much of the war atrocities that go on in the world today. It’s also the reason many scientists use to try and defend the animal testing they do. “We know it’s not nice to test on animals, but doing so is for the greater good of the human race” – Taking another example of a well known TV programme – Dexter. A serial killer that kills other serial killers – he’s potentially saving the lives of lots of people, but in the eyes of the law he would still be seen as guilty. Obviously some greater goods are better than others and this would be a good example – but it’s a dangerous road to lead down whereby we do everything for the greater good. As an example – were we to actively get involved like some have in the past of burning down buildings of animal testing etc. then it’s not so black and white. Or to take an even extreme example – suppose you became a serial killer that killed anyone that abused animals (or just anyone that exploits animals – so everyone that works on a farm)
Anyway, moving on from that, the main point I was trying to make to VS was this: As we know, it’s completely natural for us to want to stay alive and do what’s necessary to do so. But at some point, we draw a line about what we would and wouldn’t do. For example, most of us would resort to eating meat if that was our only option. It’s a life for a life. So by the same token if one animal had to die in animal testing for us to get a medicine that will cure us, would most people not be willing to do that too? But, suppose 10, or 100 or even more animals had to die for a cure to be found, most of us would see that as un-neccesary and be more willing to die than for that to happen. And it’s for this reason that we are all united in being against animal testing – in that it is really not that effective – far more animals are killed than cures are found. And there are plenty of other options available that don’t include animal testing. However, were it to be a lot more effective than it is – would it be OK that a few animals die to potentially save the lives of so many humans? And as scientists say “for the greater good of the human race” – well, if the human race as it is was worth saving (ie. everyone was vegan and cared for animals) then maybe it would be something worth doing.
As others have pointed out too a lot depends on whether or not doing something will continue to support an industry. Taking a cure that cancer research UK has found would continue to support that charity whereby they still continue to use animals in research. It’s the same reason we don’t eat eeat meat even though the animal is dead – it still supports that industry. Whereas using a product that was once tested on animals but that comes from an industry that no longer does is fine because no more animals have to suffer. Plus, we also have to consider that products/cures that have been found with animal research may have happened without it. It may have taken shorter, or longer – but it would still be out there. So it makes little sense to ignore it just because of how it came to be.
I’m on an anti-depressant that was most likely tested on animals, and I have been for almost four years.
While I don’t like having to take it, I’m not good to animals who still need help if I’m dead or in a mental institution.
I’m in continuing therapy, and I hope to eventually go off of the drug.
As for other medication – I don’t take anything that I don’t absolutely need. I have Fibromyalgia, and they tried to put me on something for the pain, which I turned down.
And, generally, I turn to Herbalism for everything else.
But if you -need- something for survival… Obviously, it depends on your own ethics… But, as an animal rights activist, you’d be doing the animals a lot more good if you took the medication, and stayed alive to continue helping them.
Just my opinion, though.