That's a good question, BW. My ob purported to be very pro-VB, and I do think, in comparision to other obs, he is in fact very much prefers less intervention if possible. BUT even he, on two occasions, suggested a c/s. Once when I was 39w2d and saying I was 'so tired' of being pregnant (I politely declined) and the 2nd was when Charlie was in distress.

It actually made it harder believing he was pro-VB yet thought I should have a c/s. I think had I had less fears of c/s, and less confidence that I could birth vaginally, I would have caved, thinking that if my pro-VB ob thinks I should have a c/s, then surely I must need one? Yet I didn't need one after all. My ob, as lovely as he is, was most reluctant to admit that in fact I probably would be able to deliver a baby in distress vaginally without consequence. In fact, I did!

I want to believe that there are obs out who will not offer c/s as an option unless there is a definite medical emergency based on evidence, not just an ultrasound or their 'hunch'. And who will explain to the women clearly that a c/s as an option is less safe and more prone to complications for her and her baby than a VB. I think if there are obs like that are out there, they are in a very small minority indeed.