320 TREATMENT OF LAMENESS. 



Innieness arises from bone-spavin ; its eradication is much moi-e 

 certain and rapid when a pointed cautery is applied to the 

 diseased bones than when the hock is fired in the ordinary way. 

 Again, a spavin has been fired and blistered repeatedly without 

 benefit ; the bones are " punched " — a barbarous operation, and 

 only to be performed in extreme cases — violent inflammation 

 j9 excited in the diseased bones, which for a time increases the 

 lameness ; but this gi-adually subsides, and the original lameness 

 is found to be removed. 



How, then, are we to account for such results ? Certainly 

 not by the theory of metastasis. Dr. Bennett, sceptical as he 

 is in most things, seems to believe in the doctrine of counter- 

 irritation, and thus expresses himself: — "Artificial irritations of 

 the skin, to produce internal or distant effects, are caused by 

 what are denominated couiitcr-irritarUs, including stimulants, 

 frictions, hot applications to parts, sinapisms, blisters, moxas, 

 cauteries, &c., &c. These ' all opsrate through the nerves by 

 reflex action ; some, like warm fomentations, soothe irritation ; 

 others, as blisters, create it locally, but remove it where it wag 

 primarily seated. How this is accomplished constitutes one of 

 the most vexed questions in therapeutics." — (Bennett's Prirv- 

 ■ciples and Practice of Iledicine.) 



I am of opinion that the curative action of external irritants 

 is not due to their producing metastasis or counter-irritation, but 

 that they excite within the originally diseased structure a repara- 

 tive inflammation, partaking in its nature of what is described 

 by Virchow as the " secretory inflammation," which, superseding 

 the original diseased process (whethTsr that be inflammation pure 

 and simple or its effects, ulceration, caries, or the formation of 

 O^low form of fibrous tissue), excites the formation of reparative 

 material, by which breaches are united, ulcers healed, and 

 diseased action removed. 



To illustrate this view, I will bring forward two familiar ex- 

 amples : — \st. The healing of a sinus or fistula, after the applica- 

 tion of a blister, or of the actual cautery to the skin contiguous 

 to it ; and 2d. The removal of phlebitis by a blister. 



In the first instance, we find that a sinus heals after a blister 

 or cautery by the formation of an oi-ganizable exudate, which 

 completely fills up the cavity of the sinus ; and, in the second, 

 we find that a blister assists in the obliteration of the inflamed 



