I had no idea this topic would blow up! But, unfortunately, while some good points were brought up (Pharmacists are more than drug dispensers, have lots of training, moreso than Dr's in certain areas (I never said they didn't, that was others), etc), this ultimately boiled down to people arguing whether a pharmacist that is pro-life has the right to refuse to dispense drugs that violate their pro-life views. And regardless of how eloquently anyone has pointed out how this shouldn't be allowed, pro-life posters disagree, probably because they are pro-life and no argument will change that.

And that boils everything down to "should you obey the law if you think it's wrong". To some the answer is always no, to others the answer is always yes, to most the answer is "it depends". If you are among the 99ish% that think polygamy is wrong you have no sympathy for polygamists, but many had the utmost respect and sympathy for people to protest "seperate but equal", even tho in doing so they were breaking the law at the time. Does supporting breaking a law that is overturned more correct than supporting breaking a law that may not (like legalizing marijuana)?

Let's remove religion from the argument entirely. Say I'm a pharmacist (I'm not), and I morally oppose people getting recurrent prescriptions for sleep meds. I feel that for a short term problem its fine, but over the long term people should not be allowed to take possibly addictive drugs as their sole method of falling asleep. And I feel this could be doing a disservice to the patient who would benefit from further tests/treatments to treat the problems, not overmedicate it. Would I be within my rights to say no to a customer after his/her 3rd consecutive month? Even if I'm in a rural area where there are no alternatives. Even if I'm not, should I be allowed to overrule the Dr's intent because I don't agree with it?

I say no, do the pro-life arguers still say yes, even tho this drug has nothing to do with abortion? If so, is it the same argument, or something different? I think a pharmacist would have a harder time keeping their job over this transgression, however I think he/she would actually have a sounder argument as it's based in their medical opinion, and not their moral opinion. Thoughts?