yes, being told at 30 weeks that you'll need to be induced because you're likely to have a large baby again is a crock - however, we don't KNOW what the context of the conversation was. we dont KNOW how traumatic the initial birth was for the mother. was don't KNOW why the decision to induce early was made. yes, it's sad. but we don't KNOW and can't judge.
BG I agree with you here a little - my initial vent was very generalised and I tried to point out in a later post that there are often extenuating circumstances that need to be taken into account. But....

I took the orginal vent as one of just a long line of misinformation kwim? And just more of a frustration at hearing the same old worn out myths over and over again.
Trillian you hit the nail on the head. I was more having a general winge about how almost every pregnant woman or woman who has birthed who I talk to seems to say similar things. Like "I tore last time so this time I have having a c/s" or "my sister and mum had c/sections so I expect one myself" or "Last time I was administered an epidural right away because my baby was posterior". You have got to wonder how many women who have "extenuating circumstances" are in that situation because of a lack of info/awareness, rather than truly unusual or unavoidable medical complications.

So I guess my two cents after the last two pages of posts is - how many traumatic births where the women and babies are saved by intervention were actually precipitated by unwarranted intervention in the first place? Sadly, because so many women who endure birth trauma seem to only find solace in assurances from their doctors that they "would have both died" but for the intervention itself, I doubt we will ever truly know the answer to this question. Because if we look for the answer we risk going to places where many women dare not look (and by this I don't mean that we should be looking to blame women themselves!)

(And BG while I know you have bowed out of this post I do applaud your having put forward a different POV)