New medications are constantly being introduced. Nice try.

No, his opinion and moral beliefs are valid, and no one asking him to give up his faith or compromise his beliefs. I also don't think anyone is thinking their opinion is more important than anyone elses. But this man violated corporate policy. And pleading ignorance is no excuse.

New drugs are being developed everyday, and I'm sure some people will find them objectionable. However, it is not up to the pharmacist to decided which drugs can and cannot be taken. A pharmacist is not a medical doctor. He is there to fill precriptions on behalf of the doctor, because the doctor feels that whatever medication is prescribed is the right course of treatment for the patient.
It doesn't matter that the pill came out ofter this man became a pharmacist because the company he worked for clearly had an established policy that he could not refuse to fill a prescription based on moral/ethical/religious reasons.

Well, if everyone followed what their company told them to do, this world would be a craphole, that is for sure. (i.e. Enron) As far as I am concerned, moral and ethical beliefs take priority over comapny policy, but maybe I am old fashioned... What I am saying, is that he DOES deserve to be fired, but do not insult the pharmacist, or say that he is wrong for doing what he believes is right.

And russellwarshay... I don't see what you are getting at, man.

Filling prescriptions of new medications is a constant process. It is not his job to evaluate the efficacy or legitimacy of these medications, as this is done by the FDA.

Of course, not everyone does exactly what their company tells them too, but it's certainly a cause to be fired, and he got what was coming to him. I don't know why you think we are sayign that his beliefs are wrong. No has said that. People disagree with his beliefs, and some feel that it was not his place to pace judgement/decide what course of treatment is correct for someone who is not his patient, etc, etc., but no one is saying his beliefs are wrong. Just that we disagreee with them.

His company is not trying to force him to engage in illegal activities. What they are doing is well within the boundaries of the law. If it is outside of his moral code it is his responsibility to leave that job, not expect corporate policy to change to suit his beliefs, and certainly not to refuse to perform his function.

"Some people really need to shove that religion crap right where the sun don't shine!"

"it kind of makes you wish the pharmacist's mother would have aborted him"

Um, these are a little more pointed than saying he should do what his job tells him to do. I think he SHOULD have been fired. He DESERVES to be fired. The point is that people WERE personallty attacking his decision. He made a MORAL decision to not supply someone with a drug that aborts what he feels is a life.

When he found out this pill was coming on the market, if he had such a strong feeling about it, he should have asked his supervisor (store manager, head pharmacist, whoever was above him) if he was going to be required to dispense it. If the answer didn't jibe with his moral code, he needed to quit his job THEN AND THERE. Not throw a wrench into the works when someone needed an emergency prescription.

From what I have read, he was the supervisor...

Why does it matter?

I guess what I mean is, he refused this drug to like 6 people and Eckard didn't seem to care... Maybe he had a deal w/ Eckards, and now they have finally fired him (which they should have done earlier) because it is media spotlight fodor.

Maybe the Corporate offices weren't aware he was refusing to fill thiese precriptions because no one bothered to complain about it.
I don't think it's media fodor. I think Eckard's was made aware of the issue and the took action.

Actually, now that I think of it, maybe he shouldn't have been fired. I believe this is Eckard's fault. You shouldn't have to agree to go against your moral beliefs to be a pharmacist. Eckards should have made sure someone at the pharmacy would agree toi disense the medication... Yes, he should have come forward with the release of the drug and said he would not agree to dispense it. Eckard should respect that, and staff someone at the location who WILL dispense the medication... How 'bout that?

Fact of the matter is, he didn't tell his superiors about his beliefs, he didn't ask another person to dispense the drug. So it's still his fault. Eckard were within their legal rights, and I think they did the right thing.

Agreed, he should have said something, and at that Point Eckard could have placed someone there in his stead. He could have been moved to a different pharmacy, or he could play a different role at the pharmacy or something.