I haven't read or voted - i'm in the UK, c-section rates are published as a matter of course here. We have a national health service. When public money is used these things HAVE to be transparent.

And yes, the section rate at my local hospital (nearly half of all 1st time mums) DID put me more in favour of homebirth. The rate of epidural uptake did too - 80%, 91% of all first timers... I just could see it was unlikely i'd get the sort of birth i wanted there. If i'd wanted a section i'd have gone there. Surely knowing the figures gives women more choice. If you want a section you wouldn't have a homebirth, so if you want a natural undrugged experience why would you go to a place which specialises more in the medical model of care?

Women should be able to access these figures so that WHATEVER kind of birth they want, they can know they're going to a place where they're most likely to get it. The whole "naming and shaming" aspect is a bit childish really. Part of the reason (NOT the whole reason) the hospital near me had such a high section rate is because it's an obstetric centre for complicated births and a teaching hospital. It's catchment area is gigantic and ALL the complicated cases are passed to it. If a hospital takes more high risk pregnancies it will of course have more sections, though i got a statistician friend to adjust for that and it still came out above the national average (which is WELL above what the WHO advise) which spurred me into asking for a homebirth. I was served by the midwives from that hospital and i was very happy with my experience. In fact i just found out i can elect for that team again at my new address and i'm doing a little happy dance

Bx