I haven't read the book, so can't comment on its position or its bias, but I think that it would be better to say that those who want an epidural should have a thorough and accurate understanding of both the benefits and risks of having one.

To say that there are risks is not mumbo jumbo, it is not propaganda, it is not lies and deceit, it is fact based on empirical evidence. No one here is saying don't have an epidural, instead that it is up to the individual to decide whether the benefit they will personally gain from an epidural will outweigh the potential risks, based on an accurate understanding of those risks.
Sorry but it just ISN'T supported by the evidence. You really need to read the book and the refs cited. It was proven in 2005 or 6, can't remember, that they DO NOT lead to longer labours or more interventions for example. EVEN when given early.

And yes his book lists some risks. They are put in perspective and not glossed over. But the thing most people don't know is that there are also risks the other way. And they CAN be significant for some like me. I would have had a caesar without my epidural, no question. I'm not the only one.

Like I said - I know its the knee jerk to say a Dr is biased. But someone needs to stand up and say midwives are damned well biased the other way and should be treated with at least equal suspicion. Their earnings are much more linked to a per capita usage of their non-medicated services.

No one, least of all Grant, is trying to make people have epidurals who don't want them. But if you DO want them do not be put off by the propaganda. And yes that IS what it is.