Really old post, but
Is pretty false. Most major ethical theories (deontology, virtue ethics & of course consequentialism) take into account consequences. Some deontologists say that we have a duty to reduce/alleviate suffering. Threshhold deontology, Rossian pluralism, even Kant talked about consequences (despite him being almost the paradigmatic deontologist).
Critiques of util are often based upon the fact that consequentialists only take into account consequences - so much that the rightness/wrongness of each action is determined by the consequences, which can justify things that may be intuitively immoral/unjustified (which utilitarians/consequentialists will have to 'bite the bullet' or adopt some form of rule utilitarianism or something along those lines).
It gets into the territory where it's difficult to coherently create a bright green line between consequentualism and non-consequentialism barring some circumstances. Even more, this breaks down the argument - utilitarianism is a specific type of consequentialism (they're not interchangeable, and reducing criticisms of utilitarianism to consequentialism is misleading and even more, wrong) and if we consider all normative ethical theories consequentialist (as some have done: see Consequentialize This), then we're only arguing about which type of consequentialism we should prefer.