I enjoyed this article from the AMA Journal of Ethics titled, The Difference between Science and Technology in Birth, and appreciated the authors' view on evidence-based care, ethics, and informed consent. It's important to recognize that modern midwifery does not seek a "natural" birth at all costs. Instead, the primary focus is evidence-based care that supports the best health possibilities for the mother and baby.
Low-intervention births are often labeled "natural," something that sounds more foolishly romantic than medically sensible. For this reason, we believe it would be better to think of childbirth not in terms of "natural versus medical" but rather "scientific versus unscientific."
There's a notion, that maternity care should strive to be "scientific" instead of "natural" or "medical." In reality, a safe birth might need to have various components along the continuum between those extremes. Attending births certainly requires a caregiver to know how to act and when to act, but it must include the experience of learning when nonaction is the most beneficial for mother and baby.
Few experiences before medical school prepare a person for what it means to act on the principle “First, do no harm.” In most areas of life, action is more highly valued than nonaction. Yet birth offers an opportunity to appreciate the importance of clinical humility and of living by the motto, “Don’t just do something—stand there.” To be a good doctor means to stand there until you know that intervention is likely to be best for the patient, even when that may be the most harrowing for your own psyche.