In macro photography, if you want to get your subject completely in focus you should try focus stacking:
Focus stacking is both time consuming, and consumes more storage space, and more processing power. Using apertures smaller than f/11 can be perfectly acceptable, in practice...especially for shooting an object that is mostly flat, and parallel with the sensor. If the subject has more depth in the third dimension, that is when focus stacking really makes more sense, and can come into its own. The question really should be, at what point does the image justify the effort spent for focus stacking? Is it really required, or is it more an academic exercise?
For example, magazines such as "Nature Photographer", rarely even include landscape images that were shot at wider than f/14 aperture (whether that is always the right philosophy, might be up for debate...but the editor certainly voices their opinion in favor of it, and very often includes it in the text with the image). In those cases focus distance is not only not in the macro realm, but is usually more than 10 feet from the camera, and on a wider angle lens to boot. Yet at f/14, the lens is yielding noticeable softening at the pixel level, due to diffraction. But the 8.5 x 11 full page (or sometimes smaller) prints in the magazine, do not appear soft. And in most cases, there was no focus stacking.
As photographers, it's our judgment call, based on our experience and our willingness to commit time...as to which technique we use.