But are the injury and mortality rates higher because C-sections are riskier, or because high risk childbirth are done through C-section? You need to control for the prior, otherwise the statistic is not very useful.
From what I understand C-sections are much riskier for the mother than we might think. It's significant surgery which can always lead to complications or infection.
The other factor is delivering a child naturally that gets stuck and didn't get enough oxygen but lives is probably the most expensive outcome for doctors because that child can live with severe physical or mental handicaps and need support the rest of their lives.
The problem is not that C-sections are riskier than "we" might think, and certainly not that I might think because I'm extraordinarily unlikely to be in a situation to decide whether to do one or not. The important question is whether they are riskier than the alternative (natural child delivery) in the specific instances where a C-section is practiced.
It's entirely plausible that C-sections are done too casually and doing them less often would result in better outcomes. It's also plausible that they are not. The cynical in me finds very plausible that the answer to that question varies widely doctor to doctor.
The other factor is delivering a child naturally that gets stuck and didn't get enough oxygen but lives is probably the most expensive outcome for doctors because that child can live with severe physical or mental handicaps and need support the rest of their lives.