It seems to me that instead of arguing over statistics we might want to consider that childbirth is as much about the mother as it is the fetus. This is because they are not separate entities.
The Western philosophical tradition, with its emphasis on discrete, rational individuals as "units of existence" fails to take into account that the fetus is not some tiny adult living in a uterine "house." Its very existence is symbiotic. So it's senseless to bicker about whose welfare is more important--mother or child-to-be.
Forgive the aside. I would also like to point out that high-risk pregnancies cannot always be evaluated in advance. I owe my life and most of my mental faculties to medical technology. I was breech, 2 months premature, and had the umbilical cord wrapped around my neck when I was delivered in intensive care. I weighed 2 pounds and 3 ounces. Without the advent of the incubator I never would have survived. I firmly believe that if my mother had not had regular sonograms, she would never have known I was in danger. She took impeccable care of herself throughout her pregnancy and had already given birth to one healthy child.
The most important thing to be gleaned from this node is not that doctors are in the business of usurping women's "power" over their pregnancies. Rather, it is that conventional medicine should be applied in a way that does not dehumanize the pregnant woman. If the woman does choose to have her baby by means of a midwife, this doesn't mean that she should ignore the life-saving benefits that conventional medicine has to offer.