My minimum expectations for your annotated bibliography are the following:

1. Include 3-5 sources found using the library databases.
2. Include bibliographic citation in MLA or APA style.
3. Include 3-5 sentences that summarize the article’s major argument.

See below for models of how to write annotations for your sources. The following annotations are exemplary and move beyond basic summary to reflect critically on the value of the source.

Peterson, George J., and Michelle D. Young. “The No Child Left Behind Act and Its Influence on Current and Future District Leaders.” Journal of Law and Education 3.1 (2004): 343-63. OmniFile. 3 Oct. 2004.

In this article, Peterson and Young argue that the gap between current educational guidelines and the proposed measures of the NCLB Act will lead to the breakdown of administrative leadership in targeted school districts. Measurements of school performance, they note, rely too heavily upon student achievement scores, and consequently, school administrators must play a more integral role in the education process. This change will require an overhaul of the training systems in place for preparing superintendents, principals, and other administrative positions. While I believe the ultimate goal of the NCLB Act will have a positive impact on the education system, the way to achieve that goal is being too hastily undertaken. This article will be useful to my research because I am investigating the various changes that need to be implemented in the requirements of the NCLB Act in order for it to achieve success. In particular, Peterson and Young address the challenges posed to administrative issues, which will supplement my attention to curricular issues.

Harrison, Kristen. “Television Viewers’ Ideal body Proportions: The Case of the Curvaceously Thin Women.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research (March 2003): 255-63. Health Reference Center Academic. Thomson Gale. 21 July 2006.

Kristen Harrison examines the correlations between body proportion of busts, waists, and hips, that are ideal to women due to the exposure of television shows. Harrison creates four hypotheses for her experiments. They consist of how the ideal bodies in television shows are associated with breast, waist, and hip size of normal women and how it is associated with the acceptance of cosmetic surgery. The patients in the study used a bodybook, consisting of pictures of women ranging from thin to obese. They then picked the image that they thought they most looked like. In another section of the book, they drew what an ideal woman’s body looked like to them. The data was then calculated and Harrison interpreted the findings that concluded in women wanting smaller hips and waists, but bigger breasts than what they actually had. In another part of her experiment she proved, though a scaled questionnaire, that exposure to ideal-body images in television shows was positively associated with approval of using cosmetic surgery such as liposuction.

Harrison’s experiments and conclusions of body proportions and cosmetic surgery correlating to body ideals through television shows confirms my view of how being thin is influenced through the media, resulting in elective cosmetic surgery procedures which are not necessarily needed. She states that the women in the experiment’s mean Body Mass Index (BMI) were normal. For these normal sized women to say they are not opposed to having cosmetic surgery is of relevance to my topic because it shows how desperate women are to fit the ideals of society through unhealthy means. They view cosmetic surgery as an easy way out of exercising without considering the health risks involved.

Hoss, Rebecca A., and Judith H. Langlois. “Infants Prefer Attractive Faces.” The Development of Face Processing in Infancy and Early Childhood: Current Perspectives. New York: Nova Science, 2003. 27-38.

Rebecca A. Hoss and Judith H. Langlois claim through their own experiments, as well as through previously conducted experiments that infants prefer attractive faces as opposed to unattractive faces. One of their first experiments shows that an infant’s preference correlates to how adults and children view social attractiveness. They also conducted a study to see if attractiveness preferences are innate by testing newborn babies at 15 minutes old. Hoss and Langlois concluded that attractiveness preference was not innate in humans because the newborns did not show a preference between an attractive or an unattractive face. An earlier study done by Slater et al., was a similar experiment that concluded innate preference of attractiveness in newborns tested at 72 hours old. These experiments lead Hoss and Langlois to conclude that infants gain attractiveness preferences only after they had seen many faces. Another experiment performed by Hoss and Langlois evaluated how infants and adults were both able to identify prototype faces as attractive. These are faces that were averaged mathematically by a computer to create bilateral symmetry so that both halves of the face are equal to one another. Previously done experiments, in addition to their own experiments, helped Hoss and Langlois conclude that attractiveness is not learned by society but by recognition of how symmetrical the face is because the biased adult and the unbiased infant both found the prototype face to be attractive.

Harrison, on the other hand, talks about how television shows promote the desire for cosmetic surgery because women do not feel that they posses the ideal body type. Both of these studies suggest that society’s standards, in one way or another, sets what is considered to be attractive. Society places a lot of emphasis on what beauty entails, but what goes unnoticed is the symmetry behind what is considered beautiful. The connection between these different types of experiments is that society emphasizes the beauty in actresses because they are probably more symmetrical in nature. This unconscious desire for symmetry may be what drives these women to want cosmetic surgery.

Charo, R. Alta. “The Celestial Fire of Conscience – Refusing to Deliver Medical Care.” The New England Journal of Medicine 352 (2005): 2471-73.

Charo contends that with the increase of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions on the basis of personal beliefs, pharmacists are simply protecting themselves from the outcome of their actions, not their patients. Some pharmacists reject valid prescriptions for birth control, arguing that it conflicts with their religious practices, and do not take the patient’s medical needs into account. Charo argues that pharmacists should maintain the difference between his or her personal life and professional responsibilities. He proposes a solution by mandating a system for which pharmacists must provide counseling and transfer patients to pharmacists that provide the service that he or she is refusing.

Charo insists that this solution will allow every patient and professional to “act according to their own conscience”. However, he has not taken into account that many professionals feel that referring a patient contradicts their own personal and religious beliefs. Charo suggests this solution as a compromise, when in reality it is favoring the patient’s position. The pharmacist may have refused to fill the prescription himself, but with the obligation to refer the patient to another pharmacist with opposing views, he is still acting against his own values. Charo’s arguments relate to my research topic because he has made it clear that there is an apparent conflict between moral values and job responsibility when it comes to pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions based on personal beliefs.

Dresser, Rebecca. “Professionals, Conformity, and Conscience.” The Hastings Center Report 35 (2005): 9-10.

As the world becomes more diverse and the health field continues to evolve, Dresser challenges the grounds on which pharmacists allow “conscientious objection” to interfere with their job responsibility. People who enter the pharmacy profession agree to take on specific duties, regardless of his or her beliefs. Although Dresser defends the pharmacist’s right to refuse to dispense drugs, she stresses certain obligations, such as making restrictions public so that patients are aware of limited access to drugs. In addition, Dresser declares that pharmacists are responsible for informing the patient of where to have their prescription filled and that a failure to do so should be reason for disciplinary action.

Dresser’s argument is contradictory. She presents the fact that pharmacists have the obligation to fill valid medical prescriptions for approved drugs, but in a later statement, she argues that they should not be required to fill prescriptions for a “morally opposed use.” Dresser fails to answer the question: If a patient has a valid prescription for a drug that conflicts with the moral values of the pharmacist, is it unethical for the pharmacist to reject this prescription? This presents a conflict of interest. When, if at all, is it acceptable for a pharmacist to refuse a valid prescription from a patient seeking medical drugs?

Greenberger, Marcia D., and Rachel Vogelstein. “Pharmacist Refusals: A Threat to Women’s Health.” Science 308 (2005): 1557-58.

Greenberger and Vogelstein argue that the increase of drug refusals by pharmacists around the world is a growing problem and that pharmacists who refuse to fill valid prescriptions do not make their patient’s health their first priority. Denied prescriptions for birth control cause negative effects on women’s health, including unplanned pregnancies and dangerous medical conditions. Greenberger and Vogelstein suggest that legislation should require pharmacists to dispense all legal and valid drugs, despite his or her personal beliefs, a problem which can be solved by moving the responsibility of filling prescriptions from the individual pharmacists to the pharmacy as a whole. Therefore, pharmacies can make arrangements to ensure that all prescriptions are filled despite the beliefs of individual pharmacists.

My research topic covers the controversy over the ethics of refusing prescription drugs based on the pharmacist’s personal or religious beliefs. Greenberger and Vogelstein defend the standpoint of the patient, in that he or she has the right to receive their prescription drugs on a timely manner. However, they failed to mention that although pharmacists may refuse to fill prescriptions for certain drugs, arrangements are often made to ensure that the prescription is filled by another pharmacist. They did not distinguish how many patients are turned away without a filled prescription from how many had their prescription filled by another pharmacist in the same day.

Shacter, Hannah. “Emergency Contraception: Balancing a Patient’s Right to Medication with a Pharmacist’s Right of Conscientious Objection.” Penn Bioethics Journal 2 (2006): 35-37.

Shacter declares that the most difficult step in receiving access to emergency contraception, namely Plan B (levonorgestrel), is through the pharmacist. Not only do many pharmacies not carry Plan B and have to order it through their distributor, but an increasing amount of pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for this contraceptive. This requires patients to find another pharmacist that will accept their prescription. Shacter argues that because emergency contraceptives are time sensitive, a refusal to dispense this drug conflicts with the well being of the patient. She stresses that the patient’s needs are the number one priority for pharmacists and that laws should be implemented to ensure that their needs are met. Shacter insists that this problem can be resolved if the government and The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) execute more effective and reliable policies. She believes that it is possible to take the pharmacist’s ethical concerns into account as long as they do not interfere with the patient’s right to a filled prescription on a timely manner.

Shacter’s arguments agree with the previous ones made by Charo, Dresser, Greenberger, and Vogelstein in that they each agree that the patient should be entitled access to their filled prescriptions in a timely manner. Both Greenberger and Shacter agree that when pharmacists refuse to fill a valid prescription based on their personal or religious beliefs, the patient’s health is at risk. However, Greenberger argues that legislation should require pharmacists to dispense all legal drugs under valid and appropriate prescriptions despite conflicts with personal morals, whereas Shacter believes it is possible to implement the pharmacist’s ethical concerns as long as they do not conflict with the patient’s needs.