Herald, thank you for you kind comments, but to be honest, I'm not saying much that hasn't been already published in various ways by people with a medical background / more experience than me. The issue is more about getting that message to a wider audience, or people who are asking questions like you - which is why MN is such a good format to do that.
With this particular subject, there is an additional problem with media representations and political involvement. It has deeply coloured the debate and doesn't really do women who are in need of support many favours.
MN is one of the few places, that I think women can speak openly about their experiences, and can share with others in a similar situation. There are a LOT of women on here who can emphasis with you (perhaps more so than I can, as like I say, my circumstances are slightly different).
In fairness midwives are in something of a rock and a hard place. As are a lot of consultants. There is political pressure to reduce CS and promote 'normal births'. Promoting normal births, is fine, but only if you address all the other issues surrounding it - such as women feeling in control and being listened to and having their rights fully respected. The reason that maternal requests are increasing is largely down to poor care and these issues being ignored.
The point that what women really need/want is the right care for them, is being completely missed. The emphasis is on the medical procedure and not the women centred care, which is fundamentality flawed.
So against this background midwives informing women, that they may face a fight might be completely correct and it would be irresponsible for them not to properly prepare those in their care about a real possibility of hostility and a need to be assertive.
Equally consultants are being held accountable for the number of CS they perform and this is closely monitored and regarded as a 'bad thing'. Hospitals are still rated (and funded) in part due to their CS rates. And ELCS are easily targets to cut than EMCS... Really the two should be treated separately as they carry extremely different levels of risk (and indeed cost).
CSs are however, not a good thing nor a bad thing. They are a neutral thing; the thing we should focus on is, women who need one get one, and that those who don't need one don't get one. Need is not just about physical issues, its also about mental issues and failure to understand this, is at the heart of the problem.
Women who ask for an ELCS are typically labelled or perceived by the media and politicians as being weak or 'too posh'. The reality is very different. The over whelming majority of maternal requests have mental or physical reasoning behind them - they are generally not made without thought. They tend to be made by women who belong to more vulnerable or at risk women who are often the most deserving of support, rather than condemnation.
Chelsea and Westminister is a prime example of this - they have be forced to 'address' their CS rate as it was one of the highest in the country - without properly understanding why they had this rate in the first place. The assumption has been based on the 'too posh to push' myth, rather than looking at why women are making this request and why they might have good reason to. (Rather ironically, in every other area of healthcare, having a middleclass/affluent background is viewed as the best indicator of good care with empowered patients - yet not so for maternity)
What it comes down to, is a real lack of understanding of the issue, ideological beliefs and myths dominating decision making, instead of looking at evidence and women being the focus of their own care, usually being dismissed as an inconvenience.