That was no cheap journalistic trick. Just a few facts to set you straight:
Parents brought little doggie to vet for flea treatments costing about $87.00; they could have simply banished the dog outside or done a “do-it-yourself” flea treatment for a few bucks - yes; they exist.
A doctor’s visit for a routine check to see why the kid has a lump in his neck and doesn’t feel good runs about $75.00. This was the excuse the parents kept giving for not even bringing the kid to the doc for even the FIRST visit. I guarantee you these losers never looked past even the first visit.
The PROSECUTOR in this case is the one who presented the grand jury with the paid bill for the flea treatments, causing not a few jurors to cry, so the paper just printed that.
So much for CHEAP tricks. Time to open your eyes. Sometimes newspapers do a good job at pointing out things we need to know which is why I’m not thrilled so many are going down the tubes. In spite of their liberal bent, they do often do good investigative work - at least the Plain Dealer has and I say “kudos” to them for that. Of course, I still hate Connie Schultz.
Then it was a cheap trick by the prosecutor to tug at the heartstrings and make people angry by inferring that the parents chose treating their dog for fleas over treating their child for cancer. The truth is that the parents are probably idiots who refused to do anything for their child because they were, well, idiots. I hope they don’t have any more children or we will be left paying for idiots squared.