confusion

I was a bit confused at the end of Gawande's article. At first I assumed he was going to be denouncing the idea of industrializing childbirth, the very nature of the word "industrializing" stirs negative connotations. Throughout the article he flip-flops a bit through differing opinions, seemingly never taking a hard stance. He clearly knows what he's talking about, as he describes in details many different methods of childbirth and the history of the subject, as well the story of the Rourke family interwoven through the text was a nice touch,  the prose flowing and interesting. Mrs. Rourke is very firm in her stance that she doesn't want drugs or a C-section, so the fact that Gawande is telling her story made me think that he was of similar opinion on the subject, that these are bad paths to take. Then he launches into his discussion of C-sections and their reliability, but never really draws to a conclusion, should we follow the path most traveled? Or should we continue to be innovative and try new things? Rourke ends up taking the drugs and having the C section, her and her baby turn out better than fine. So then I wonder, is Gawande advocating for this decision? Then we learn that Rourke was really torn up about her "failure" to stick to her original plan. The message being sent is never quite clear to me. Perhaps Gawande does this intentionally, or maybe I'm not analyzing the text well enough. This, in turn, made the second article more difficult for me to get through because I wasn't sure if all of Goer's attacks on Gawande were warranted. Nonetheless, I learned  A LOT about childbirth; from forceps to midwives, that I did not know before.