A new study of over 24,000 full-term births found that the risk of complications increased 20-100% with scheduled [repeat] C-sections, depending on how early they were scheduled [i.e., 37-39 weeks]. The research was conducted by doctors at the University of Alabama Birmingham using data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. It was just published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
I don't doubt the findings, but the different presentations of the study in the media make me want to see the full text of the study before deciding one way or another [not that I'm planning to have a C-section any time soon, obviously]. The Washington Post article emphasized the risks and complications ["Early Repeat C-Sections Increase Risks, Study Finds"], while the AP takes a womb-half-full perspective ["C-sections best for baby when close to due date"].
Meanwhile, the spokeswoman for the NICHHD [?] gets all and interpretive, trying to elaborate on why women schedule C-sections, you'd think they'd interviewed the 24,000 women over coffee instead of reviewing their birthing center records. Possible motivations include the arrival of in-laws, a favorite doctor's vacation plans, convenience, being tired of pregnancy, and "being eager to see their baby." Actually, except for locking in a favorite doctor, I have a hard time believing anyone giving any of those reasons out loud.
Early Repeat C-Sections Increase Risks, Study Finds [washpost]
C-sections best for baby when close to due date [ap/yahoo via dt reader sara]