Pin/Bar Firing?

Both organisations that control Vets believe that it is illegal.

If someone is brave enough to take a test case and both those organisations appeared in Court as prosecution witnesses to say

we remain of the view that firing cannot be legitimately undertaken by a veterinary surgeon for the purpose of medical treatment
Click to expand...

what hope in hell do you think there would be of that Vet being found not guilty by the Magistrates or District Judge?




Just because the law has not yet been applied does not make the act of firing a horse legal.





ps Read the full quote again Amymay, there is no contradiction whatsoever in what the RCVS statement. What they say, in paraphrase, is that burning a horse would be legal if it was for medical treatment, but the RCVS believes that there is no justification for using burning as a medical treatment. Therefore they believe it is illegal. No contradiction in that.
 
Last edited:
But they do contradict themselves.

They say it unethical, but then go on to say that (it could be seen) as being used as a medical purpose for treating an animal (although they see no justification for it).

They can't have it both ways.


Quote:
Firing of horses
RCVS position unchanged on this unethical procedure

Veterinary surgeons have reported to us that some horse owners and trainers are requesting that they carry outthermocautery, or ‘firing’, of horses. This provides a timely opportunity for us toreiterate our position.

Firing of horses is the application of a red-hot iron(line or bar firing) or electrical process to produce a thermal burn to the skin over an injured tendon;or, a red-hot pin (pin firing) which burns through the skin to produce thermal tissue damage; or, a chemical burn by chemical reaction (acid firing).
The resulting scarring and hardening at the site of tendon, ligament or periosteal injury was thought to improve healing by causing a counter-irritation or inflammatory response.

We have consistently declared that firing is unethical. Since the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, it is a criminal offence to carry out a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal (prohibited procedure), other than for the purpose of medical treatment of an animal.

While we respect the veterinary surgeon’s freedom to select a treatment of their choosing, there is no readily foreseeable justification for the use of firing.

We are unaware of any scientific evidence that suggests the use of firing is therapeutic, so remain of the view that firing cannot be legitimately undertaken by a veterinary surgeon for the purpose of medical treatment. In addition to any potential criminal liability, the professional conduct of a veterinary surgeon subjecting a horse to firing in England, Scotland or Wales could be called into question.

While a veterinary surgeon who carries out a prohibited procedure in Northern Ireland may not necessarily commit an offence under the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, their actions could also be the subject of a professional conduct investigation by the RCVS.
 
Firing creates scar tissue which acts very differently from tendon
This tissue is a poor substitute and does fail
Will it fail in this horse? Who knows!
A lot will depend on the state of the tendon - previous injury and the scaring response
If it is a dream horse, very/very cheap and you don't mind potentially only getting a few years of soundness then get it vetted and may be an unltrasound of the tendons?
Be aware insurance won't touch the front legs after something like firing
 
Pin firing is still done in the racing industry regularly. It is a barbaric thing to do to any horse the smell of burning flesh is indescribable and it only increases the success of the injury by 25%ish. Due to the length of time that the horse in question was done and how much he has done since he should be absolutely fine cosmetically it should affect the price but he can still do ROR as it is a 'racing blemish'. There are a lot of horses needing rehoming out of racing - the price needs to be sensible as a lot of very nice ex racers are free although he has obviously been reschooled.
 
I read that as that the association believe strongly that it is unethical and there is no place for it, but then they quote the actual law which says that it is allowed for medicinal purposes.
However they don't write the laws and still reiterate that their stance is AGAINST its use.

That's just how I read it :)
 
amymay said:
But they do contradict themselves.
Click to expand...

No they don't.


amymay said:
They say it is unethical, but then go on to say that (it could be seen) as being used as a medical purpose for treating an animal (although they see no justification for it).
Click to expand...


No they don't.

What they do say is that
it is a criminal offence to carry out a procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of an animal (prohibited procedure), other than for the purpose of medical treatment of an animal.
Click to expand...


Since they then say that there is NO medical purpose for firing, then by definition they are saying that it is, in their view, illegal.

There is no contradiction whatsoever in their position and I'm baffled how you can read what they have written as contradictory.
 
patterdale said:
I read that as that the association believe strongly that it is unethical and there is no place for it, but then they quote the actual law which says that it is allowed for medicinal purposes.
However they don't write the laws and still reiterate that their stance is AGAINST its use.

That's just how I read it :)
Click to expand...

That's not the right readng of what they wrote Patterdale, sorry.

What they say is that it would be legal IF it were done for medical purposes, but that in their view it CANNOT be used for medical purposes, because it provides no medical benefit.


If (when?) someone is brave enough to bring a case to court, what this means is that the Vet will claim that he did it for medical purposes (his only available defence). Then a representative of the MRCVS will stand in the witness box and give evidence that the MRCVS standpoint is, as has been documented for many years, that there is no therapeutic vaue to thermocautery and that it therefore is impossible to claim that it was done for medical purposes.

At that point the Judge/Bench will have to decide whether one vet was right to do what he did, or whether the organisation which represents him and every other vet in the country is right.

Who do you think they will believe?
 
I thought for a long time firing was only done for the owners benefit as vets have known its not beneficial in any way. Some owners like the vet to seem pro active about it and it gives them a physical wound to look after rather than a tendon, that after a short while often looks no diffrent to a healthy leg despite needing more time. So vets find owners more willing to give the horse the time it needs to heal properly.

Why any owner that claims to care about their horse but would still have it fired is beyond me, as if doing a tendon wasnt going to be painful enough lets burn its legs.
 
dafthoss said:
I thought for a long time firing was only done for the owners benefit as vets have known its not beneficial in any way. Some owners like the vet to seem pro active about it and it gives them a physical wound to look after rather than a tendon, that after a short while often looks no diffrent to a healthy leg despite needing more time. So vets find owners more willing to give the horse the time it needs to heal properly.

Why any owner that claims to care about their horse but would still have it fired is beyond me, as if doing a tendon wasnt going to be painful enough lets burn its legs.
Click to expand...

In my experience it is the owners who are adamant they want it done, and you know how gullible many horsey people are - whether it's a new 'magic' potion/feed/piece of equipment or something dated that now has plenty of evidence as to why it shouldn't be carried out.

The vet I knew who still fired was very well aware of the current thinking. The firing was done out of hours, and the procedure didn't appear anywhere in the billing or computer system. The thing that got me the most (bar the barbeque smell) was the fact that the horses weren't even allowed any pain relief as they wanted as much scar tissue to form as possible...
 
rhino said:
The thing that got me the most (bar the barbeque smell) was the fact that the horses weren't even allowed any pain relief as they wanted as much scar tissue to form as possible...
Click to expand...

Really? Burns are so, so painful. That makes me want to throw up :o
 
I know someone who used to get all their point to pointers pin fired as a matter of course as they thought it was beneficial to them!!:o It's disgusting that people are still thick enough to do it know - what is it with horse owners and traditions which go against every grain of common sense?? I know an orthopedic vet who used to buy the stuff that burns splints off - how can you chemically burn bone off by applying something to the skin????! - just shocking amounts of stupidity about!!!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top