All have their pluses and minuses. Sometimes people with terminal cancer opt for no treatment, as they'd rather enjoy a shorter time than have a painful longer time.
The notion there is no choice is simply incorrect.
Generally, only a pretty specific mix of these will yield a beneficial result. There are inoperable tumors, there are patients that will not withstand chemotherapy, and radiotherapy of a tumor too close to a critical organ will also not suffice.
Usually these treatment options would be weighed by a board of experts from the different medical fields involved, taking into account the individual patient's constraints.
I don't really see how you come to the conclusion that there is much of a choice for a cancer patient. It's not like you can tell the tumor board "I want surgery" when that's not a clinically viable option. And it's also not like any of these options is particularly affordable - any of them will easily bankrupt someone living from paycheck to paycheck. Heck, the MRI scan alone can.
It's still pretty binary between "get reasonable treatment costing tens of thousands or die", as the other poster pointed out.
1. radiation
2. chemo
3. surgery
4. some combination of the above
All have their pluses and minuses. Sometimes people with terminal cancer opt for no treatment, as they'd rather enjoy a shorter time than have a painful longer time.
The notion there is no choice is simply incorrect.