It seems that there is conflicting evidence on whether inducing labour causes an increase in the likelihood that a caesarian section becomes medically necessary.
Let me quote two authorities:
British Medical Journal
“Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study”, BMJ 2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2838 (Published 10 May 2012)
Conclusions and policy implications
Our finding that elective induction of labour is not strongly associated with an increased odds of caesarean section and is associated with a reduction in maternal complications, goes against obstetric dogma but supports evidence from a recent systematic review comparing elective induction of labour with expectant management, where induction of labour was associated with about a 20% reduction in caesarean section.
Website: Labor induction: Risks
The need for a C-section. Labor induction is more likely to result in the need for a C-section — particularly if you've never given birth before and your cervix hasn't already begun to thin, soften and dilate (unfavorable cervix).
I would like to know which is correct - or perhaps why the two authorities differ. Does inducing labour increase the risk that a C-section will be necessary?