[blaquebyrd]

"I think my integrity as a person and the way I live my life would speak more volumes than to take part in dispensing a drug that would end a life."

And that's fine, you are perfectly within your right to not dispense the legally prescribed drug. However, wouldn't you make a stronger statement if you chose not to accept employment/compensation from a company that does dispense the offending drug? Wouldn't it do more for your integrity if you were not employed by a company that dispenses pharmaceuticals you find morally objectionable?

[70times7]

Yes

[Witter]

Yes.

[70times7]

(oops) Yes, but that is a seperate issue from whether a pharmacist can be compelled to dispense medication that will arguably end a life against his/her sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Witter]

Yes. It would be better not to be employed if it came down to that.

I think we need to come down to the article though. It states that the employer is trying not to let the state make him sell these drugs. Hopefully he will win. Otherwise, there won’t be many pharmacist comfortable working in this area of expertise who are pro-life.