What are the health differences between babies born via c-section vs.
naturally (if there are any)? I'm not interested so much in immediate
differences (e.g., risks associated with the birth, risk to mother's
health, etc), but rather differences that manifest themselves later
(say after a year and through to adulthood and old age). Note that I'm
NOT asking this question in order to decide between them (though that
obviously will interest other people). A concise summary list of
differences would be most helpful, along with references below the
list (that I can follow up).

mharoks-ga,

Short answer...There aren't any!

At least, none that have been clearly documented.


Scientists at the National Institutes of Health in the US have very
recently (March 2006) looked into this very question.  You can see the
outcome of their efforts here:


http://consensus.nih.gov/2006/2006CesareanSOS027html.htm#Statement
NIH State-of-the-Science Conference: Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request



Note that the second question (of the four questions addressed) specifically asks:

--What are the short-term (under 1 year) and long-term benefits and
harms to mother and baby associated with cesarean delivery by request
versus attempted vaginal delivery?


Any identifiable risks to the infant from either method of delivery
are largely due to the time of delivery, and the fact that some
cesarean deliveries appear to occur too early to allow for full
development in utero.

However, for the long-term risks, the NIH scientists were unambiguous
in their need to be vague:


"Neonatal Outcome Which Favors Neither Planned Delivery
Route...Studies of neonatal mortality lacked statistical power. Poor
data quality limited interpretation of studies on long-term neonatal
outcomes..."


In other words, they simply do not know if there are any long term
implications to the health of the baby that relate to the type of
delivery the baby experienced.


Note that, though the NIH is based in the US, their state-of-science
reviews typically cover the world-wide literature on the topic at
hand.


The full document, which NIH ironically calls an 'abstract' (119 pages
of it!) can be viewed here:


http://consensus.nih.gov/2006/CesareanProgramAbstractComplete.pdf



If you search for the term [ long term ] in the document, you'll come
across only a few mentions that have to do with long term outcomes for
the infant, and none of them are conclusive, or even strongly
suggestive.


I trust this very recent, very comprehensive review of the literature
fully meets your needs.

However, if there's anything else I can do for you, please let me know
by posting a Request for Clarification, and I'm at your service.

Thanks,


pafalafa-ga


search strategy -- Google searches on 

c-section 

Cesarean Delivery on Maternal Request

Thanks for your answer. The very recent review you found was exactly what I needed.

Some of this material may also be of interest (although none of it is
as recent as the NIH study that Paf found for you):

http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=480523

Oops. I just noticed that you are the same customer for whom I
answered the question I mentioned above. Is my face red. Well, pink
anyway. ;-)