Would you consider this 'cruelty'?

Horses struck down by mystery disease

The way I see the above case is that the owner is deliberately going against the advice of vet's and instead prescribing her own treatment regime. This treatment regime is actually causing harm, in my opinion and not solving the problem.

Now the question is, is she failing to provide a satisfactory standard of care to her animals? I personally think she is.

Hmmm...cruelty, I'm not sure of. I'm more prone to say that there is questionable veterinarian service available to this woman.

Although rare, equine systematic lupus is an auto immune disease that can first surface by affecting a horse's skin. This is the first thing I thought of when I read this article just because my dog was diagnosed with this disease a few months ago. His symptoms are loss of pigment on his nose, mouth, eyelids, and lips and sores develop in these areas, and they spread when he's out in the sun. We use a steroid ointment on these areas, give him fatty acids, pure Vitamin E extract, a multi-vitamin, and we keep him out of the sun as much as possible.

If a horse has this disease, and is out in the sun a lot (which horses usually are) the sores can spread, and get worse. It is not contagious, but if the horses have the same genes then it is very possible they have the same thing.

It is incurable, but can be made less painful. The disease usually ends up affecting the bones (as in the "human" lupus), but doesn't progress to that stage very quickly.

The more I think of it, I would think this woman would get a second opinion. Maybe it is cruelty, then.

It sounds to me that she has asked for plenty of opinions. Sometimes the resources you have available to you are limited and to presume cruelty isnt fair unless the situation seems to really warrant it. Cruelty is a tough call.

It appears that this woman is doing everything she can to help her horses and I really don't see anything that would make me think she was being cruel to the horses

I do not see it as cruelty mainly because she is trying to do what she knows to help these horses. My questioning is for the vets, if they do not know what is exactly wrong with the horses, why do they not treat the symptoms instead of just saying we don't know. After all, aren't you suppose to treat the symptoms of a horses illness and not just the illness itself?

Good point. Also, the vet could take some cultures/blood etc and send them away for testing. My vet will look to other sources if he doesnt know what is wrong

The thing is, the vet has done the above.

These samples are most likely to head off to a specialist diagnostics lab and will most probably be seen by a specialist ~ the vet's in terms of diagnostic care cannot do any better.
Further, the vet's are trying to treat the illness the best they can in the mean time through the use of penicillin - a treatment which she has decided does not work despite only having been on it for a maximum of 3 weeks, probably less.
Instead she is using an antibiotic skin cream which does not make much sense considering that penicillin is itself an antibiotic. If penicillin is not working then a (probably non-prescription) skin cream is very unlikely to work. Further, she is using an iodine rub which is actually burning the skin. I'm sorry but if something actually harms the horses, then in my book it is not treatment but cruelty.
I mean there is the possibility that it is some kind of unusual disease, that is what the tests are for. However, in the meantime I find it quite irresponsible to ignore the advice of the professionals in favour of her own diagnosis.

My interperatation of that article is that the owner is providing her own veterinary care. It doesnt sound like she has an actual vet, other then the one that came down and took blood samples and what not. I wonder what the other owner has to say? That's a little scary, but I wonder too, unless it's just the way the article was written... I'm not sure the owner has actually called her own personal vet... strange....

I personally think 'cruelty' would be to do nothing at all, or worse....

I haven't had a vet at my place for 3 years, but I have a vet that I could use if the situation was beyond my control. I also was a vet tech for 8 years and do my own shots and everything. But if something like that DID happen, I would consult a vet.

That is not cruelty in my opinion...Why would it be?