the responsibility wouldn’t be given to the pilot with an instruction to descend not below the DME steps. There is no such terminology used in the USA and Canada.
Dick, there is also no such thing as DGA's in US/Canada. DGA's cannot be fully contained in controlled airspace and therefore if you elect to fly those approaches responsibility for airspace containment is up to the pilot. Lets be clear here DGA's were never intended for use at towered aerodromes, they fit another purpose entirely
If you want full protection from airspace and terrain then you should be flying a runway aligned approach. That is the only option they have in the US/Canada.
We could withdraw DGA's? But then, no doubt you will arc up about lost efficiency or something.
FACT: You chose to fly a DGA
FACT: You apparently also chose to fly it using a dive and drive method
FACT: You had a range of other procedures available that provide airspace and terrain protection
If you had issues in flying this, then there really is no-one else to blame. Even with the greatest technology available this would not have increased your perceived level of safety.
BTW, you didn't crash and you didn't nearly crash which anecdotally suggests that the current system works and the current system is safe. In order to suggest an increase in safety is required you have to establish the current safety baseline.
Your assertion that more monitoring using technology increases safety is false. There are numerous instances around the world and in the US where the controller was actively monitoring an aircraft whilst they crashed into the ground.
Alpha