Discussion

Firing is one of the oldest forms of treatment but in modern times much doubt has been cast on its efficacy and humanity.

In 1983 the RCVSs Equine Sub to Committee discussed firing, in the light of a Silver and Rossdales paper published in the Equine Veterinary Journal (Silver and Rossdale 1983). The Sub to Committee considered whether the procedure was an effective form of therapy for tendon strains and whether the pain involved was justified by the results. They agreed that the procedure was painful, but decided that the procedure, while not ideal, was the best treatment available for tendon sprain.

Following a report of Working Party in 1986/7 the Royal College listed firing of horses as a practice which Council deplores as being ineffective and/or lacking justification as methods of treatment and which should be discontinued.

In 1991 it was proposed that the Council [of the RCVS] should declare firing to be an unethical procedure and prima facie evidence of conduct disgraceful in a professional respect. This motion was unanimously agreed but the ruling provoked, as might have been expected, significant debate, including raising concerns that firing would continue by European vets (in the UK or in Europe), or by lay people, with significant detriment to horse welfare.

Further, the ability of the Royal College to pursue a case against a veterinarian who, after due consideration, performed the procedure with diligence, effective anaesthesia and analgesia and post operative care, and a successful result perhaps saving a horse from euthanasia, was challenged.
In 1992 it was reported that the Royal College had agreed not to pursue a notified occurrence of firing, casting doubt on their ruling. Since then the debate surrounding firing has gone relatively quiet.

Firing is considered to be a form of therapeutic thermocautery but the use of the term often fails to make a distinction between thermocautery of the skin overlying a lesion and techniques that create thermally induced changes within the injured tissues to stimulate healing or scar tissue formation.

The most contentious technique of firing involves burning the skin over and around an area of tendon strain. The rationale is that the inflammatory change produced encourages vascularity of the area and thereby promotes healing, plus the new scar tissue forms a supporting collar around the area; the so to called scar tissue bandage.

Despite the lack of proven efficacy, and the RCVSs stance, there is evidence that firing of tendons continues to be practised and is in demand from certain owners and trainers.

Following discussions the RCVS have clarified their position on firing/thermocautery for the treatment of equine orthopaedic conditions to BEVA:

1. The RCVS respects the veterinary surgeons freedom to select
a treatment which he or she considers appropriate but notes that with the freedom comes the responsibility to justify the therapeutic choice.

2. The RCVS considers all forms of firing including pin to firing (where the lesion, rather than the overlying cutaneous tissue, is thermocauterised), bar to firing, line to firing and blistering (where the skin overlying the digital flexor tendons is thermally or chemically cauterised) to be mutilations (practices which RCVS Council considers ineffective and/or lacking justification as methods of treatment and which should be discontinued).

3. The RCVS highlights that, although it has not happened to date, firing could be called into question under the Animal Welfare Acts of 2006 and therefore that there is potential criminal liability for anyone carrying out the procedure.

4. The RCVS is duty bound to act if it receives a complaint or if there has been a criminal offence.

This session will debate the issue and delegates will have an opportunity to express their views by means of a poll.