Progress and the healthy hoof

Its that odd time of year - the hiatus before the New Year really gets under way.  My inclination is to look forward and be optimistic but its still midwinter, the days are short and the weather is unkind and its a time when you can't avoid being realistic.

Over the last year, more horses than ever have come here for rehab and more and more owners have educated themselves about hoof health and lameness.

But will this be the year that vets start educating themselves about hooves?

Of course I've been fortunate enough to meet some brilliant vets - sceptical but open-minded, which is the best combination.  But I've also met complete indifference and sadly this is the more common reaction.

As I said last year, I'd understand completely if the view was "we're interested but we need more research".  I would be ecstatic if someone was intrigued enough to use the research results I've got and analyse them further, or develop more research - which is something I don't have the skills to do.

I find indifference frustrating, though, particularly when for many of these horses everything else has been tried and has failed.

This is a post I seem to write in one form or another most years; maybe next year I will be writing a different post.

I think for that to happen, though, vets would need to become familiar with something which I think most of them have never seen: a healthy, hard-working unshod hoof.

I know many of you will have read the following quote before, but its so good that I make no apologies for posting it again.  It still sends a chill down my spine whenever I read it.  It was written by David Wootton in his excellent book, "Bad Medicine"; if you don't know it, do read it if you've got a minute, because its an incredible piece of writing:

"Think for a moment what surgery was like before the invention of anaesthesia in 1842...  Imagine taking pride above all in the speed with which you wield the knife - speed was essential, for the shock of an operation could itself be a major factor in bringing about the patient's death.  


Now think about this: in 1795 a doctor discovered that inhaling nitrous oxide killed pain..yet no surgeon experimented with this.  The use of anaesthetics was pioneered not by surgeons but by humble dentists.  


One of the first practitioners of painless dentistry, Horace Wells, was driven to suicide by the hostility of the medical profession.


When anaesthesia was first employed in London in 1846 it was called a "Yankee dodge".  In other words, practising anaesthesia felt like cheating.   Most of the characteristics that the surgeon had developed - the indifference, the strength, the pride, the sheer speed - were suddenly irrelevant. 


 Why did it take 50 years to invent anaesthesia?  Any answer has to recognise the emotional investment that surgeons had made in becoming a certain sort of person with a certain sort of skills, and the difficulty of abandoning that self-image.


If we turn to other discoveries we find that they too have the puzzling feature of unnecessary delay...if we start looking at progress we find we actually need to tell a story of delay as well as a story of discovery, and in order to make sense of these delays we need to turn away from the inflexible logic of discovery and look at other factors: the role of emotions, the limits of imagination, the conservatism of institutions.


If you want to think about what progress really means, then you need to imagine what it was like to have become so accustomed to the screams of patients that they seemed perfectly natural and normal...you must first understand what stands in the way of progress"