> it is very difficult for doctors to recommend non-treatment or risk being sued into oblivion
Not my experience. I have a loved one going through cancer treatment right now and they've been very up front about risks, side effects, and even talked about DNRs with them what they mean and how they can be applied.
People and their loved ones don't want to experience death. It's often as simple as that.
> There was a wink wink situation where as the kidney failure worsened, his morphine was increased to the point where it was fatal.
In the US, exactly because of situations like this, that sort of thing is a lot harder today to pull off.
> I'd weigh the quality of life of treatment versus non-treatment.
Something to consider, it's not a binary and treatment can look entirely different depending on the cancer.
You can, for example, do a lower than effective dose of chemo which will still be effective at slowing the growth of cancer.
Some therapies, such as immunotherapy, can be practically a walk in the park.
I'd suggest strongly in any case that you have a discussion with an oncologist if you ever get to that point. Things in medicine aren't nearly as black and white as people sometimes assume.