Medical liability is a two way street...

I am trying to understand the difference between forcing a boy with cancer to have treatment. Who's mom's beliefs see medicine in a traditional sence, which potentially could result in the childs death...
And a person with no insurance being allowed to die because they can't afford medication that would save his/her life..
If we are going to get involved in the personal medical decisions about the ability to save a persons life, based on the ability to potentially save that life through medical means,, then should we not take into acount the ability to save life based on medical ability, and not on if they can pay or not ..?
So many people without insurance or access to treatment, remain sick, and die everyday because executive people have made the decision that money is the prime factor in determining treatment or lack of. It seems to me to be the same argument, so why not put a warrent for arrest on the people who decide that because you can't pay, you shouldn't be saved..? Shouldn't they be held just as accountable as the mother of this boy..?