Talk:Medical certificate

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 5 January 2013 for a period of one week.

Medical certificate is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Notability and referencing work[edit]

As everyone can probably tell, we have our work cut out for us here. Although I am not entirely clear on the reasons this article was selected for TAFI, I trust the project's judgement and will progress on making this into a respectable article. The recently archived old talk page contains some references we might be able to use. I would like to direct our main efforts towards establishing the grounds for which this topic is notable and how we can cohere (i.e. link) it into some related articles. I am not an expert on health care or documentation of such, just so you know, so the details/content of this article will probably not be coming mainly from me. HectorAE (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly strikes me as a challenge. I'm imagining some sort of groundwork where we establish what medical certifications cover, why they are needed for certain jobs/tasks, and then list off the different types. For example, I have heard that commercial pilots need 20/20 vision. Not sure if that's the case, but it could be. Maybe we can link this somehow to astronaut's fitness criteria. Police and firemen medical criteria. Medical certificates for the purposes of health and medical insurance. Medical criteria for political office? Would drug testing fall under the scope of this article? It's a certificate of sorts, somewhat related to medicine and/or health.

Those are my off the top of my head thoughts. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact, these articles currently link here in a significant way: Aegrotat, Cornelius Fontem Esua, Jet's Law, Pilot Proficiency Award Program, Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are birth certificates and death certificates medical certificates for the purpose of this article?[edit]

Or might we best put them in a See also section? Biosthmors (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They could go in "See also". Those certificates are more legal documents than medical documents. - HectorAE (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification[edit]

I've removed the following from the Purpose section for having a grammatical issue, not being specific about what's illegal and portions not being supported by the citation.

When medical professionals have sign medical certificates for healthy workers, illegality might occur.^[1] Depending upon the circumstance, some employers do not require a medical certificate for just one day's of sick leave.^[1]^{[failed verification]}

^ ^a ^b Viellaris, Renee (2011-07-24). "Doctors slam bosses for requiring medical certificates for just one day's sick leave". News.com.au. Retrieved 2013-01-10.

Looks good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that this was my edit. Any rewording made after that is not down to me. Btw Kvng, we could really use your help. Any chance you could give the TAFI a bit of a boost? Right now there's hardly any info in it at all...! :/--Coin945 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it decayed pretty quickly from where you launched it. Sorry for taking it out rather than digging into edit history to salvage. Sorry that I'm not available for heavy lifting on this. I've been distracted helping to get the TAFI project featured on the main page. -—Kvng 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google[edit]

There's sooo much brilliant information at GoogleBooks and GoogleScholars. Let's get stuck in. :D--Coin945 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! I was reading this page this morning which looks good! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Coin945 (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-US-Centric?[edit]

While a refreshing change from the many Wikipedia articles which are US-centric, one statement sticks out as being Non-US-Centric:

"There have been discussions regarding whether it is okay to fire someone for submitting a fabricated medical certificates. In many cases, it is deemed wrong..."

This presupposes an environment where some outside agency is allowed to tell an employer that he cannot fire someone. In the US, except in the limited situations where someone has a contract stating otherwise (often found in union contracts) or where the firing is for a specifically prohibited reason such as race, you are pretty much allowed to fire anyone for any reason or for no reason at all. To the US reader, the idea that someone can tell you that you can't fire someone for lying to you is completely (*cough*) foreign. Can we come up with a wording that applies to most or all English-speaking countries? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I am proposing that the article on aegrotat (aka sick note) should be merged here. I don't think that topic has enough substance to survive on its own, as it such an integral part of this article that they should come together. While medical certificates are merely records about an appointment, it is their use to give employees sick leave that takes up the majority of the article. What do we all think about this?--Coin945 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Completely agree with this, you can almost drop the article into a section. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 15:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support As an aside, I don't think the Popular culture section in aegrotat is worth keeping. -—Kvng 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes, makes good sense to me. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is no need for two articles on identical/extremely similar topics. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 03:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -—Kvng 04:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

What is the difference between a medical diagnosis and a medical certificate ? Are they different documents ? Neither article mentions each other. Thanks Votedaisy (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College leave[edit]

College leave 01-01-2024 to 15-01-2024 103.79.114.49 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[news-1] Viellaris, Renee (2011-07-24). "Doctors slam bosses for requiring medical certificates for just one day's sick leave". News.com.au. Retrieved 2013-01-10.

[1]