[chrisherring]

"Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked."

The comparison is natural birth to c-sections. Comparing scheduled c-sections to emergency c-sections is a ridiculous thing to track, go compare GP visits vs admission to emergency while you're at it.

[russdill]

It's 100% relevant. If you have a pregnancy for which there is a high chance of an emergency c-section, an alternative is a scheduled c-section.

[chrisherring]

No it’s not. That’s a different comparison.

[pc86]

How is it a different comparison? If you knew whether or not you'd need an emergency c-section, you'd never have any emergency c-sections. There are four types of labor:

1. Unassisted (with and without medication)

2. Assisted (vacuums, etc.)

3. Scheduled c-section

4. Emergency c-section

The problem with #4 is that it often happens after attempting 1 and/or 2 unsuccessfully. The baby is in a much worse position, sometimes medically and often physically within the mother's body. You can't compare 1 and 4 without also comparing 1 and 3, 3 and 4, etc. Everything is interrelated.

[chrisherring]

Comparing outcomes of emergency c-sections to scheduled c-sections is always going to come out in favour of scheduled c-sections. On one side something is going wrong 100% of the time and the other something is not always going wrong. Not sure how to make this anymore obvious. This is a pointless comparison.

Comparing outcomes of natural births as a whole vs scheduled c-sections is far more useful comparison.