180 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
SPAYING IN SMALL FEMALES. 
Editor A merican Veterinary Review : 
Dear Sir: —I have read a paper in the Review of Nov. 
18th, 1890, written over the name of T. B. Rogers, D.V.S., 
which has caused me a good deal of anxiety to know how long 
and how extensively he has practiced “spaying,” under the 
methods he mentions, for what he designates the enlighten¬ 
ment of the younger members of the profession. 
1 am a graduate and practitioner of comparative medicine, 
and am proud to think myself among a class of scientific men 
whose motto is, (or should be), amelioration in every practi¬ 
cable manner of the sufferings of our lower animals (and earth- 
born companions). 
I firmly believe that scientific and consequently successful 
practice of veterinary medicine and surgery can come from 
such men alone as build their methods and practice upon a 
sound education and moral which has for its corner-stone, 
humanity. 
In the reading of this article written by Mr. Rogers, I 
find proof added to proof, strengthening my conviction. 
In the name of veterinary science and such convictions I 
am, I think, justified in asking Mr. Rogers to answer satis¬ 
factorily (to the junior members at least) the following ques¬ 
tions regarding his operations : 
1st. Why in the name of modern science does he not make 
painful and delicate operations in such animals under the influ¬ 
ence of anaesthetics, as is being almost universally practiced 
by every practitioner worthy the name? 
2nd. Why should sections of the uterus be removed and 
in several ways increase the gravity of the situation to no 
practical purpose if the operation of ovariotomy be skillfully 
performed ? 
3rd. Was the bladder not opened by accident rather than 
mistake, owing to struggling from pain, and why was the 
organ not relieved by the catheter previously ? 
4th. Why should we fear the breaking off of a resistant 
