VETERINARY OBSTETRICS. 
445 
Mr. Aitken also says, at page 143, that he always amputates 
at the knee. I have found it far better to amputate at the 
fetlock-joints, leaving the feet attached to the skin, and fixing 
a rope thereto. After skinning the leg in the usual way, as 
high up as the elbow-joint, I double the metacarpal bone 
upon the radius, bringing either side of the noose over both 
bones, and then pass the free ends of the rope through the 
noose. The more the ends are pulled the tighter will the 
noose grip the metacarpal upon the radius. I then proceed 
to skin as much of the shoulder as T can. The assistant 
pulling at one or both cords upon the foot and knee greatly 
facilitates this operation, as also that of cutting asunder 
the muscles within your reach, which attach the fore ex¬ 
tremity to the trunk. Having accomplished this we fre¬ 
quently require the united efforts of three or four men to pull 
away the scapula from its attachments which cannot be 
severed with the knife. If you amputate at the knee, and can 
only divide a few of the muscles which attach the extremity 
to the trunk, where can you get a fixed point to resist the 
strength of three or four men, and which is frequently required 
to pull away the shoulder after you have cut all that you can 
reach ? 
Mr. Aitken also states that one fore leg was tied up. A 
far safer, and therefore better plan is that recommended by 
Professor Simonds in his very able lectures on the subject, 
viz., to fix a rope on each of the hind pasterns, making the 
free end fast to one of the fore legs, by which means your 
patient can lie down or get up at will, and yet is effectually 
prevented from doing any injury to herself or the operator. 
So far as the subject has been discussed by impartial writers 
it has fully borne out my statement, that at least 60 per cent, 
are fatal cases in mares. It appears to me to be extremely un¬ 
fair in a professional man to publish a single case—even when 
the presentation is the same in both instances—to prove that 
a brother practitioner must have erred in judgment because 
the one case happened to be successful, and the other unsuc¬ 
cessful. Although the presentation may be the same in 
both cases, there may be so many unfavorable circumstances 
to contend with in the one, which are not seen in the 
other, that the man who treats the fatal case may deserve 
credit for his skill; whilst the other, though he gets all the 
praise, may deserve none. To prove this very clearly, I shall 
briefly state two cases which occurred in my own practice. 
Case 1.—May 20th, 1854,1 was called to see a four-years’ 
old cart-mare, the property of W. Taylor, Esq , Heseldon Hall, 
xxxiii. 52 
