SUBACUTE OBSTRUCTION OF SMALL INTESTINES r^i 



on every rattle of a bucket, and, permitted, would drink- 

 to an alarming excess. 



If the veterinarian is of the same mind as myself, 

 having decided that the purging is not directly account- 

 able for the pains, he will refrain from giving the animal 

 sedatives. . . . He will treat the case purely as obstruc- 

 tion, and persist in a solely stimulative treatment. 

 Should he do so, he will, on his next visit to the case, 

 have every reason to be delighted with his judgment. 

 If it is his first case of this description, he will be quite 

 anxious to learn whether or no the purging has stopped 

 unaided. He is pleased to find that such is the case, and 

 to hear that the animal has passed nothing for four, five, 

 or six hours. 



Even now there may be an element of doubt, and the 

 concerned thought is that the excreta is so thin as to be 

 running through the bedding and so escaping notice. 



The dry tail does not point to it, and rectal exploration 

 again settles the question. The interior of that bowel is 

 quite dry, and sometimes contains chippy pieces of dried 

 faeces. And still the animal is in pain — dull pain — still 

 peristalsis is in abeyance. 



The veterinarian knows now by rectal exploration 

 and the evidence of his senses (to wit, the sight of the 

 purging) that the last portions of the intestines — the 

 single and double colons — are comparatively empty. 

 The stoppage or obstruction must lie further forward. 

 It is not likely to be in the floating portion of the small 

 intestines ; that he knows from post-mortem experience. 

 It must, therefore, be situate in the duodenum, and the 

 excessive biliary staining of the mucous membranes is 

 now somewhat accounted for. Holding back from ad- 

 ministering sedatives has left him in a position to treat 

 his case on rational and not empirical lines. 



