You can only have an opinion on the ridiculous prevalence of c-section deliveries if you’re a medical processional?
Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked. Scheduled c-sections are no worse for the baby than natural delivery, and if you take into account recovery time from surgery, no worse for the mother.
You can have an opinion on whatever you like, but to be blunt, if it's as stupid as this one you should get called out for it.
Of course, the process of going through labor pains for many hours might make things even between the two...
It's not. Labor pain is more time limited and the mother is kind of "out of it", and doesn't usually remember it clearly - plus there's a prize at the end :)
C-section pain is worse, and it lasts several weeks exactly at a time when the mother needs to do stuff. It's worse in every way.
My wife remembers every instant of all of her births.
If you are scheduling a c-section it means you are not trying for a natural birth and that means your outcome for the mother is strictly worse.
There is no good reason to have a medical doctor attend every birth. Of course in a country with a 30% c-section rate, there is much more for doctors to do. I don't think that any credible source will defend 30% as an optimal rate of surgical intervention in birth, but feel free to rebut me.
C-sections are only "no worse" for the mother and baby if you only consider mortality. Let's also consider:
1) Mother-child bonding time in the first two hours after birth.
2) Inoculation of the baby to mother's flora in the birth canal.
3) Mother's ability to care for the baby while recovering from surgery.
4) Postpartum mental health of mother who has been denied natural birth.
I said wait until medical intervention becomes necessary, not force active labor on everyone. As others have pointed out, we can detect the need for medical intervention at an early stage sometimes. That's great, people should have the medical care they need. They should not have surgery forced on them.
Anyway, I really don't think the issue with the majority of scheduled c-sections is surgery being forced on patients. It's patients and their doctors discussing the risks of an attempted natural birth vs a scheduled c-section and opting for a scheduled c-section. In some many cases the patients involved have no increased risk for a natural birth but may still opt for a c-section. And yes, on the flip side, no one should be forced into an attempted natural birth.
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.
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.
Comparing outcomes of natural births as a whole vs scheduled c-sections is far more useful comparison.