[tptacek]

A nit: is it really true that C sections are primarily for high-risk pregnancies? C sections are at an all-time high. Both my kids were delivered by C section after attempts to induce labor, but those inductions were based simply on calendar due dates assigned early in the pregnancy. People schedule C sections in advance.

More importantly: anyone who has had a C section before is likely to deliver all future children via C section; it's not a requirement, but a normal birth after C section is a special arrangement.

Finally: C section itself is a traumatic surgery with long-lasting health effects for the mother. It's routine, but still a big deal.

[dragonwriter]

> A nit: is it really true that C sections are primarily for high-risk pregnancies?

C-sections are very disproportionately used for those, though perhaps not primarily; in relation to the risk statistics upthread, is the same basic impact. You cant just compare adverse outcome rates for C-section and vaginal birth without taking into account factors associated with adverse outcomes which also make C-section a more likely event.

[tptacek]

I don't think this is unknowable; just a couple minutes of Googling turned up a bunch of studies. Consumer Reports posted an analysis from journal articles indicating that maternal mortality from C sections is strongly correlated with specific hospitals; since the predicates for an emergency C section generally aren't correlated, that strongly suggests it's the procedure and not the circumstances that are to blame. The major causes of mortality due to C section include sepsis and anaesthesia errors (this happened to my wife during the birth of our first kid), which are also intrinsic to the surgery and not to the circumstances of the pregnancy.