110 DISEASES OF THE HORSE’S FOOT 
I. THE USE OF THE HORSE THAT HAS UNDERGONE 
NEURECTOMY. 
No operation is of any considerable value to the veterinary 
surgeon unless he is able to show that after it he has left 
his patient workable. The alleviation of pain alone, com- 
mendable as it is from a humanitarian standpoint, is of no 
interest to the average owner of horse-flesh, unless with it 
he sees his animal capable of justifying his existence by 
the amount of labour performed. 
Criticised in this way, is the operation of neurectomy 
justifiable? Upon that point the opinions of many prac- 
titioners, even at the present day, differ. We have already 
partly answered the objections likely to be raised on this 
score by stating that the work afterwards allotted the 
animal should be fixed to suit his altered condition. It 
may be taken as a general rule that in all cases where the 
animal’s usefulness depends upon his delicacy of touch, as, 
‘for exanople, animals used solely for hacking or hunting, 
his future usefulness in that special sphere of work will be 
done away with. 
Percival himself, always a strong advocate for the 
operation, fully recognises this. ‘Does the neurotomized 
horse maintain the same step as before?’ he asks. ‘To 
this important question,’ he replies, ‘I unhesitatingly 
answer no; he does not. There can be no doubt but that 
the horse feels the ground upon which he is treading, and 
that he regulates his action in consonance with such feeling, 
so as to render his step the least jarring and fatiguing to 
himself, and therefore the easiest and pleasantest to his 
rider.... Such impressions ’—those of touch—‘ being in 
the neurotomized subject, so far as regards the feeling of 
the foot, altogether wanting, a bold, fearless projection of 
the limb in action will be the consequence, followed by a 
putting down of the hoof flat upon the ground, as though 
it were a block, creating a sensation alike unpleasant both 
to horse and rider.’ 
Emphatic: as Percival is upon this point, there are, 
