annotatedbibliography - Kimbra Ussery ENGL 1102 3/9/2012...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kimbra Ussery ENGL 1102 3/9/2012 Annotated Bibliography (2008). Abstracts. Issues in Law & Medicine, 23(3), 301-308. Retrieved from This journal mainly provides an overview of the law that protects pharmacists from giving out medications that compromise their beliefs. If it is against a pharmacist’s beliefs to hand out a particular medication, they must direct the patient to another place they can get it at. The example that the article focused on was the handing out of contraceptions. Many pharmacists feel that emergency contraception is unethical because it is like an abortion; however, the journal took the opposite view. These pills suppress ovulation, inhibit fertilization by thickening of the cervical mucus, reduce the possibility of fertilization by movement of the Fallopian tubes, or inhibit implantation by thinning of the uterine lining. Some pharmacists believe that the pregnancy begins at fertilization, however, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has ruled that pregnancy begins with implantation. Because of the issues with pharmacists’ beliefs, there has been debate over whether physicians should be able to hand out medications. After all, the doctor is the one who wrote your prescription. However, this is unfair because physicians and pharmacists receive different training based on their skills. Such a change would limit the jobs of pharmacists. The source was created in 2008 so it is fairly current. The sources listed throughout the journal were from the years of 2006 to 2008 so they were also current. This is not an issue that has gone through a lot of change through recent years anyway. This source is certainly relevant to my topic and I really liked it. It provided a lot of detail and explained everything for the person who might have not looked up too much on the issue before reading this journal. However, it was still interesting and provided a lot of insight into the controversy. The source is from a peer-reviewed journal so I assume they are accurate and have the authority to write on this subject. While there was no author listed on the source I looked at, there were many any authors and sources cited throughout the journal, and these seemed credible. I feel the purpose of this source was to inform because it mostly laid out the facts. However, there seems to be a little persuasion because the source does take a side in the issue. It seems to be more on the side of the patients and less on the side of the pharmacists. I plan on using this source to provide background information on my topic. It was definitely good as being my first source because it provided a lot of details and an overview of both opinions. It was useful for starting me off and to help get me thinking so I could explore the deeper components of my topic. Kelleher, J. (2010). Emergency contraception and conscientious objection. Journal Of Applied
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/03/2012 for the course ENGL 1101 taught by Professor Barlow during the Spring '08 term at Georgia Southern University .

Page1 / 5

annotatedbibliography - Kimbra Ussery ENGL 1102 3/9/2012...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online