Folks,
I would suggest that what you are doing, in risk management terms, on every IMC approach on a light twin (unless certified to the "commuter" amendment to FAR 23) are betting on an engine not failing --- and statistically it is a pretty good bet, except in the case of fuel starvation, a common cause of "engine failure".
It is a nonsense to suggest that you have to stay clean until short final --- predicated on a simultaneous engine failure and a missed approach.
Flying an unstable approach is a greater risk (less safe if you insist on the use of the "safe" word) probability of causing an accident and accident, than a probability of an engine failure and a missed approach on the same approach.
For the same reason, the teaching of maintaining the "blue line" speed to short final is seriously flawed teaching, but very common, and apparently "encouraged" by CASA.
It is a very conspicuous example of the very poor risk management approach all too common in Australian aviation, that the "maintain blue line speed" demands that a final approach is unstable, ie: that 1:1 normal approaches are of increased risk, to cover an approximately 1: 10-4 risk.
As to the various claims of heroic pilots, and extraordinarily able pilots who have all sorts of examples of "what they did" --- what they mean is "this is the situation I found myself in, and didn't die, so what I did must be OK for all operations.
Tootle pip!!