Rate my argument on caesarean and natural births

[falconine]

The following advice written by a childbirth instructor, appeared in an information brochure for parents to be.

statistics demonstrate that cesarean births are dangerous for women. women are three times more likely to suffer fatal complications when giving birth by caesarean section than they are when giving birth naturally, without painkillers and labor promoting drugs. when choosing a hospital, it is important that parents select one that does not encourage unnecessary caesarean deliveries. Locally, I recommend Samaritan Hospital, because its rate of caesarean delivery is less than 2/3rd that of county general, which specializes in emergencies and high risk cases

The argument given above is cursorily well reasoned and coming from a childbirth instructor who is expert in the pertaining matter. But this argument as stated falls short in being a cogent argument. The evidence and data provided here does not corroborate very well with what is being implied here.
First the author states that women who give natural birth without painkillers and labor promoting drugs are less likely to suffer fatal complications than those who give birth by cesarean section, here author seems to have assumed that women who undergo cesarean section do that by their own choice, it can be the case that natural birth is not possible due to some other complications that could arise during pregnancy, neither does she say anything about the study on the basis of which she has come to the conclusion that natural labor is safer than caesarean section, had she given statistical details to corroborate this argument it would have been better for the argument.
Then she talks about the selection of the hospital which does not encourage unnecessary caesarian deliveries, knowing that caesarean deliveries are more complicated than natural deliveries why would any doctor who know better encourage giving birth naturally. When she states her own choice of local Samaritan hospital as the rate of caesarean deliveries is lower than that of county general, the implication she is offering could very well be false, it can both be co incidental or maybe when the survey was done at that time there were more natural births than caesareans in Samaritan hospital and otherwise in County General, also she has herself stated that County General specializes in high-risk cases, so it is very much possible that women who suffer from unavoidable complications prefer to go to County General which specializes in those cases and hence explains why caesarean births are recorded more than in Samaritan hospital.
Since this is an advice printed in an information brochre it might be the case that it has been sponsored by Samaritan hospital itself, trying to increase its revenues by attarcting more patients by indulging in immoral practices such as this in which County General has be defamed.
Hence the argument stated may be correct in comparing caesarean and natural births but it lacks some important information, providing the information about surveys and the statistical results would have made the argument more convincing. Suggesting to choose one hospital over another is completely based on assumption that the one having more natural births is better than the other without delving into the reasons why it might be so.