SIDS stands for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. This condition is commonly associated with inexplicable deaths of young children because they die when all of their body organs work normally and no signs of diseases or infections are identified. SIDS has long been witnessed. However, it has been investigated since recently. In most cases, a healthy infant between three weeks and seven months old dies suddenly. The only signs of SIDS are some symptoms of having a cold. Still, they are rarely noticed, as the general scenario is the following: a healthy baby is put in its bed and it does not wake up.
The deaths described in the story are relevant examples of sudden infant death syndrome. Regardless of a statistically astounding challenge – two deaths at the same place and on the same day – there are several arguments to support that SIDS was the only cause of death. First and foremost, all body organs of the dead infants were working normally, including blood vessels that were functioning appropriately. In addition, the criminologists paid special attention to examining the day-care center, and no signs of poisonous substances were identified in the air. More than that, the doctors closely examined children’s bodies. According to the results of the autopsy, there were no signs of infections, serious diseases, negligence, physical violence, or maltreatment. Suicide was as well impossible. At the same time, even though one child had a sore throat, this condition never leads to death (Schwartze & Lape, 2011). From this perspective, even though Lisa was a bit old for SIDS because she was ten months old, there were no causes of infants’ death other than SIDS, so this syndrome was the only explanation of the tragedy. That being said, undefined death – sudden infant death syndrome – is an appropriate explanation of the death in the day-care center.
The investigation of the day-care deaths is very much like playing the parlor game “clue.” It can be explained by several facts. First and foremost, it is a bizarre story. It is more a fantasy than a real story because of the statistically surprising coincidence of the two infant deaths on the same day and at the same place. In addition, investigating the case was based on making attempts to find clues in each detail of the tragedy. It is essential to mention the fact that clues are not always evident. In the most complicated cases, they are implied (Schwartze & Lape, 2011). What is even more significant, clues do not always point to the existence of a person guilty of a particular problem. Sometimes, they are the foundation for concluding that no one was responsible for a tragedy. In this way, recognizing that it was a mere coincidence may as well be grounded on clues.
Except for making attempts to search for the clues, this story resembles the parlor game “clue” because the conclusion is based on detailed explanations of arguments (Schwartze & Lape, 2011). In the majority of instances, as mentioned above, these explanations are used to point to one’s responsibility for committing a particular action. Still, sometimes, it is possible to conclude that clues explain that it was one of the tricks of fate that led to an undesirable occurrence, such as the deaths described in the story. In the case of the story, there were numerous clues – the level of chemical and poisonous substances in the air of the day-care center, functioning of body organs and vessels, and the bodies of the dead children. The conclusions regarding the normality and perfect health of the infants were the arguments while comparing them with medical standards pointing to the appropriateness of viewing SIDS as the major cause of their death was the explanation. That being said, although clues are implied, not evident, the story still resembles the plot of the parlor game.
Reference
Schwartze, S., & Lape, H. (2011). Thinking Socratically (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.