shagmundfeud:
Firstly, you state that the only type of morbidity that a forceps birth can cause is perineal. This is untrue. It has the potential to cause serious heamorrheage, infection and the need for further surgery. (read the links I have posted earlier) It also increases the risk of uterine prolapse, anal sphincter injuries, obstetric fistulas and various other complications which require major surgery to correct. A mother who develops a staph infection after a forceps birth (which is called an "operative birth" btw) or loses a lot of blood can end up in the ICU as well, so please don't imply that only CS mums end up in ICUs.
This may not be something you are aware of, but forceps can cause uterine rupture or lacerations and the need for a hysterectomy as well, so this isn't a risk with only CS. The important thing is the possibility of needing a hysterectomy as a result of either procedure is very, very small.
Your point about the US having a high maternal mortality rate and high CS rate is moot. China, Canada, Italy and Germany have very high CS rates as well and the lowest maternal mortality rates(other than of course the Scadanavian countries). You should look up the latest research which looks into the real reasons behind the high maternal mortality rates in USA. They don't have much to do with CS, and a lot to do with immigrant population, complications and neglect during pregnancy as well as lifestyle.
Thank you for telling me about the variations of a surgical birth, but there was really no need. I am well aware that different women will be in different risk classes. There is still no denying the fact that there is a general set of risks which are applicable to anyone undergoing a surgical birth. The level may be different, but the risks don't suddenly change or disappear.
The risks to the baby with a forceps birth are what they are- spinal cord injuries, shoulder dystocia, cerebral palsy, facial nerve palsy, brachial plexus injuries, intracranial heamorrheage, brain damage and in rare cases paralysis or death. Of course these would be higher or lower with certain kind of forceps and will be influenced by other factors, but they will still be applicable at some level. Simply on the basis of the above list a woman can decide against forceps and she would be justified in that decision.
You keep arguing that there is no way of obtaining informed consent and your arguments are making no sense. Obviously nobody can be given a guarantee as to how their birth will progress but it seems ridiculous to imply that because of that unpredictability informing women of the risks of a procedure has no benefit. I notice you are quick to broadcast the risks of a CS- doesn't your theory apply here? Why inform women about the risks of a CS either then if it is all so pointless?
You can know nothing until it happens. That is however, a rather strange reason to abandon the concept of risk analysis and informed consent. There is a general set of pros and cons with each procedure and women are justified in basing their decisions on that.
I don't agree with the concept of not informing women of the real risks involved with a procedure.
You clearly desired a large family and are therefore happy to have avoided a CS. For women like who don't plan on more than one or two children, a CS is far from the end of the world.
I'm glad that forceps did not affect your quality of life, but perhaps you need to stop and think about the multitude of women(many on this forum) who were not as lucky.
You chose to deliver an 11 pound baby vaginally and I wouldn't even have considered it. The risks of shoulder dystocia, erb's palsy and pelvic floor dysfunction would not have been risks I would have taken. I am not judging your choice, I am merely trying to show you that different women want different things from the birthing experience and they view risks differently.