Should Anti - Vivisectionists Boycott Animal - Tested Medicines ?

When we, who unequivocally oppose vivisection, take medicines that were tested on animals, we feel guilty and our political credibility is threatened. Nevertheless, while some individuals may privately abstain from such medicines, the animal liberation movement has rejected an organized boycott. Here I examine the arguments commonly offered against a boycott, as well as a few that can be found in favor. The arguments are discussed in the light of some concepts from moral philosophy; in terms of tactical merit; and (in the case of the anti-boycott arguments) in regard to the animal rights movement’s policy of boycotting animal-tested cosmetics. My conclusion is that we should promote a highly visible trend towards avoiding animal-tested medicines. Some people following the trend might reject the medicines altogether; some might seek alternative treatments where available; others might simply add a “patient choice” element to other anti-vivisection demands. But the common goal would be to make the government, the medical profession, and the public aware that we do not want to take these medicines, and that when we do, it is only through lack of choice. In this way we could put on the defensive those pro-vivisectionists who accuse us of hypocrisy. And we could demonstrate that we are willing to take any health risks that might be entailed by the abolition of animal experiments. Thus we would thus show our sincerity and commitment to animal liberation, and add a new, and hopefully effective, dimension to the anti-vivisection campaign.