Home / I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment / Part IND
"If you take medicine, you can't oppose testing."
it's a tu quoque. Patients don't choose how a medicine was developed: animal tests are or were required by law, and there's no way to buy a medicine "without testing". Refusing treatment wouldn't save a single animal; it would only harm the sick person. Veganism asks us to avoid exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable", and campaigning to change the rules is consistent with using what exists today.
Short answer
Patients don't choose how a medicine was developed: the tests were required by law, and there's no option of buying the same medicine without them. Refusing treatment wouldn't save any animal; it would only harm the sick person. Veganism asks us to avoid exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable". Using medicine while campaigning for animal-free methods is perfectly consistent, and the law is already changing.
For children
When we get sick, we need medicine. But we weren't the ones who decided to test that medicine on animals: the old rules did. A person can take the medicine and, at the same time, help change the rules so the next medicines are tested without animals.
"Would refusing a medicine that already exists save any animal?"
Como pode aparecer
"You take vaccines, so you're not vegan."
"Hypocrite who uses medicine."
"If you were consistent, you'd refuse treatment."
"A vegan who takes antibiotics can't talk about testing."
"Those who enjoy the benefits of animal research endorse the practice."
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite." (which is L4)
The strongest version
"You take vaccines, so you're not vegan. Hypocrite who uses medicine."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Almost all medicines have been tested on animals.
- P2Those who use these medicines benefit from the tests.
- P3Those who benefit from a practice can't condemn it without inconsistency.
- CSo those who take medicine can't oppose animal testing.
P1 and P2 are true. The problem lies in P3: benefiting from something one didn't choose doesn't prevent criticizing it, and critics can use what exists while working to change the rules.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses choosing a practice with benefiting from a system:
Situation Is there a choice? Does refusing help animals? Buying meat Yes, there are alternatives Yes: it reduces demand Taking a necessary medicine There's no untested version No: the test was already done and was required Buying a tested cosmetic Yes, there are cruelty-free brands Yes - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's a tu quoque.
Accusing someone of inconsistency doesn't answer whether the tests are right.
2. The patient didn't choose.
The tests were done because the law required them. The sick person has no option of buying the same medicine developed without animals.
3. Refusing helps no one.
Unlike meat, refusing a medicine doesn't reduce testing: it has already been done. It would only harm the person who needs it.
4. Veganism is "as far as is possible".
The classic definition anticipates exactly cases like this (D3).
5. It's consistent to work to change the rules.
Many animal advocates support alternative methods. The law is changing: the European Union has banned animal testing for cosmetics, and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals, since 2013; Brazil restricted animal testing for cosmetics in 2023; and the United States removed the requirement for animal tests on new drugs in 2022 (I1).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 Bans animal testing of cosmetics and the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals in the EU The marketing ban took full effect in 2013 UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Regulates the scientific use of animals in the UK Shows that testing is governed by law The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" The exception is already in the definition - d
The strongest counter-reply: those who use it, legitimize it
The most serious version says that by using tested medicines, a person helps maintain the system, because the medicine market funds research.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
There's no alternative available.
You can't choose an untested medicine when none exists.
Pressure for change is what works.
Changes to the rules, not refusing treatment, reduce testing.
Meat is different.
For food, there are immediate alternatives.
- f
Back to the moral question
The argument doesn't answer whether testing is right, or whether it's right to eat animals. It only points to a supposed inconsistency, which dissolves once what is a choice is separated from what isn't. For food, where the choice exists, the moral question remains.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Tu quoque
False analogy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Nirvana fallacy
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The accusation serves to end the conversation
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "those who benefit from a system can't criticize it".
If it applied to…Those who criticize slave labor and use manufactured goodsTap to see
They couldn't criticize it
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Those who criticize pollution and use electricityTap to see
They couldn't criticize it
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Abolitionists who wore cottonTap to see
They couldn't criticize slavery
Absurd
Contradictions
People who criticize traffic still use roads.
On other subjects.
Not against those who criticize other abuses.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that almost everyone, vegans included, benefits from medicines tested on animals, and that it's impossible to escape entirely from a system that involves exploitation. Recognizing this is honest.
But
But recognizing the benefit doesn't prevent working for change. Using today's medicine while working so that tomorrow's doesn't depend on animals is consistent. And none of this applies to the plate, where the choice exists.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- The Debate on Animal Experimentation Vol. IV, ch. 20