The analogy that has always rung true with me is that of the man trapped by a flood who is clinging desperately to the very top of his roof. He calls out to God for help. A boat comes by but the man refuses to get in the boat because he insists God will save him. A helicopter comes down and a ladder is extended to the man but he refuses to climb it because he insists God will save him. The man repeatedly declines obvious answers to his prayers.

And so it goes with medical care. Why would someone refuse an obvious answer to their prayer for healing? Are they looking for something more dramatic? Do they feel morally superior by depending solely on faith and declining the "worldly" option of medical intervention? Sometimes medical care can do only so much, and sometimes dramatic healings do occur, but sometimes they don't.

There's an old saw that says God helps those who help themselves. That concept is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it is a statement of disbelief: the idea that there is no God or that God doesn't do anything when we pray, so we're totally on our own. But the other way to look at it is that God expects us to do all we can to better our situation, while depending on divine intervention to pick up the slack beyond what we can do. In any trial, you should pray as if everything depends on God and act as if everything depends on you.

We are not promised in this life freedom from all physical disabilities, and we are not promised eternal life in this mortal coil. In the Bible, the apostle Paul struggled with an undefined disability, and apparently no healing was provided: he said God's grace was sufficient for him. No matter how much we pray or seek medical attention, there will come a time when we will die. But until then, God put the will to survive in the human heart for a reason, and we should do all we can to maintain our health and lengthen our lives, while depending on him to decide when the final curtain will be drawn.