Imagine going into a store where there are two kinds of shirts. One is created by slave labor and the other is not. Would you accept someone saying, well I’m used to the kind of t-shirt created by slaves and these are already made anyway so why would I bother choosing the other? My point is of course if your medication contains animal product no animal liberation militant or vegan will berate you for using it, but when the alternative is literally 5 feet away in the same grocery store or a few blocks away then the arguments stops working.

You can draw a parallel to what Lenin says about compromises in "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. A striker compromising with their oppressor because their strike fund is empty is not the same as a strike-breaker "compromising" with the oppressor. Some compromise are justifiable, others are not. Here you are "compromising" with your morals because you’re used to meat.

That's a fair assessment. I have been justifying it to myself by thinking, If I were to go out and hunt a dear or catch a fish, it would be disrespectful to take something's life AND be wasteful with it... but that's not really the same thing. It's a hunter-gatherer framing that doesn't translate to this situation.