No, it is not. It has never been considered a reliable source in other quality-concerned communities, and universities frequently ban it as a source even for undergraduate papers.
Wikipedia is the result of anonymous non-specialists interpreting and filtering primary studies. In some cases they are even subject to malicious misrepresentation of facts and hoaxes. It contains many errors, intentional or unintentional. Some of them are quite subtle and, especially when embedded in true facts, very hard to notice. And especially on controversial topics, which are abundant in health, they can't enforce the neutrality they strive for.
Of course, all of these points are also valid for this community - it will use the same method (interpretation of primary sources by nonspecialists) and suffer from the same problems. But while it is hard enough to deal with it, it becomes much larger if we are using unreliable secondary sources instead of peer-reviewed (or otherwise reputable) primary sources.
See also Are there instances where citing Wikipedia is allowed? for a description of how it is handled among academics, who are generally the group most concerned with the reliability of sources.
update Also see an example of a study which assessed the accuracy of medical information on Wikipedia, in this case information on drugs:
Of the 20 categories of information assessed, a mean of twelve (range, 8–16) categories were present in each of the 20 Wikipedia articles. Categories most frequently absent were drug interactions and medication use in breastfeeding. No article contained all categories of information. Information on contraindications and precautions, drug absorption, and adverse drug events was most frequently found to be inaccurate; descriptions of off-label indications, contraindications and precautions, drug interactions, adverse drug events, and dosing were most frequently incomplete. Referencing was poor across all articles, with seven of the 20 articles not supported by any references.
I have seen similar claims on the quality of Wikipedia from other sources - it is inaccurate and poorly referenced. So, it cannot be considered reliable.