So how has it happened that an organisation supporting natural childbirth is being blamed for 'making women feel like failures'?
The Royal College of Midwives (RCM) had been campaigning since 2005 to see a rise in the number of women giving birth 'normally'. That is, without Caesarean, induction, instruments or epidural.
(When I refer to a 'normal' birth from here on, I mean, a birth without any of the above interventions.)
The RCM's original campaign was called the "Normal Birth Campaign" but three years ago, that campaign was changed to the "Better Births Initiative".
Reading the Times article, you could be forgiven for thinking the Better Births Initiative had only just happened when in fact, this 'news' is actually three years old.
It goes without saying, medical intervention in childbirth is, for some women, an absolute necessity for the safety of themselves and their babies.
That is not up for dispute here - I am not against medical intervention in childbirth when it is genuinely needed.
What I do question is this - women who use induction and Caesarean by choice for convenience when there is no compelling medical reason to prevent them from experiencing natural childbirth. And more to the point, to stop the baby from experiencing natural childbirth.
Have we become so narcissistic now that we don't care to consider the impact of our decisions on others involved?
And if you aren't considering your baby's right to natural childbirth and his needs as he enters this world, how are you going to cope with his intense needs once he is here?
According to the Times article, only four in ten women give birth normally now as opposed to six in ten 30 years ago.
Natural childbirth versus a birth with some kind of intervention is an extremely emotive subject and it seems that their campaign for 'normal' births (which ended three years ago) has upset some people to the point where the RCM now 'backing down'.
Er - they 'backed down' three years ago. Why is this on the front page of the Times now and written as if it only just happened?
On page two of the Times, the article carries an analysis section in which the writer admits that 'The RCM may be right that no careful reading of its stance could justify pursuit of normal birth at any cost.'..
This is an important point and I wonder how many people who are now criticizing the RCM and playing the blame game have actually read its stance on the subject.
But an even more important point in the analysis is where it continues, '...yet it is hardly surprising that those who did not pay such close attention could conclude that the goal was to increase the number of normal births.'
There is a huge difference in what is contained in a policy and how much close attention the readers of that policy are paying to it.
Who is responsible if I don't read the Highway Code properly and I don't pay close attention to what road signs mean? If I kill someone because I didn't read a stop sign properly, who will end up in prison? It won't be the policy makers or the writers of the Highway Code.
If I fail my driving theory test, can I blame the writer of the manual for my lack of close enough attention to get it right?