Yes, it is, given exceedingly unlikely circumstances for anyone in a developed nation.

ok, we've established that its possible, can we also agree that is it not a desirable "vegan action"? and some (i would say majority, but we can quibble about percentages until the cows come home) would choose malnourishment over eating said steak? so eating a steak is very much like using a vaccine thats harmful to animals?

Yes, it's not desirable. That's plainly obvious given the extremeness of circumstances that would allow for it.



No, it's not comparable. If you had some life-threatening condition that required a medicine that involved the harm of an animal or animals, and there was no alternative that didn't, it would be unquestionably acceptable to use the medicine.

If you were malnourished you could eat something besides steak.

we've established that in this scenario, steak is the only protein available, and while unlikely, its possible. how common would you say vaccines are that require the murder of innocent animals? how common would contracting said disease be?

How about the case of leather, or animal food or any of the other products that are made from animal farming.
It's not as though the entirety of farming an animal is for that 1 delicious cut of ribeye.

The leather alternatives are all trash, see:
http://www.ecouterre.com/7-eco-friendly-and-vegan-alternatives-to-animal-leather/

Slip bacon in her salad

That's a very peculiar scenario then.

People who are vegan choose to do so (or are raised such) while in an environment where they have access to plant-based foods that cover their dietary needs. Were someone in a scenario where they had no access to protein from plant-based foods, they'd never have been vegan in the first place.

If a vegan somehow experienced an extreme change of circumstances beyond their control where they only had access to steak for protein, they could eat the stake, since veganism is the avoidance of animal products as far as is possible, and it's not possible to live without consuming protein.

The vaccine question is really complicated as it entails lots of different confounding notions such as probability of getting a life-threatening condition versus actually certainly having them--reminder that I specifically was talking about medicine in response to carteblanche which would mean a currently existing condition, and not talking about vaccines.

To give a better answer, you'd need to give me a more specific scenario in terms of what sort of disease it'd be, and what harm to the animals it'd entail.

Yeah, uh... pretty much zero vegans wear leather?

What's the question about them?

my bad, i did switch to vaccine, but its assumed a life threatening illness isn't going to fixed by tylenol. I'm just trying to point out that youre acting like this theoretical medicine is infinitely more likely than a vegan suffering from mal-nourishment, like a vegan visiting africa could never happen, while life threatening anti-vegan diseases are running ramapant.