Changes

'''Financial incentive''' in the [[United States ]] to perform medically-unnecessary, non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] is very large. Non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] is a multi-billion dollar industry. Morgan (1967) termed it "<i>chronic remunerative surgery</i>", since physicians are paid over and over again for performing unnecessary circumcision.<ref name="morgan1967">{{REFjournal |last=Morgan |first= |init=WKC |author-link=William Keith Campbell Morgan |etal=NO |title=Penile plunder |trans-title= |language= |journal=Med J Aust |location= |date=1967-05-27 |volume=1 |issue=21 |article= |page= |pages=1102-3 |url=https://www.cirp.org/library/general/morgan2/ |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=4226264 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.5694/j.1326-5377.1967.tb20892.x |doi= |accessdate=2024-05-22}}</ref> Profit is reaped not only from the practice of [[circumcision ]] itself, and associated hospital charges, but also from the sale of harvested [[Foreskin| foreskins]], the sale of products derived from harvested foreskins, the sale of circumcision specific tools and utensils, and the treatment of oomplications [[Complication| complications]] and botched circumcisions.

Mansfield et al. (1995) reported there are no [[medical indications indication]]s for non-therapeutic infant circumcision.<ref name="mansfield1995">{{REFjournal

1.2 million baby boys are [[circumcised ]] a year in the [[United States ]] alone. At a dollar per procedure, that is already $1,200,000 a year. The going rate for a circumcision procedure is approximately $1,700 when hospital charges are included, multiplied by 1.2 million, that is approximately $2,040,000,000 a year that circumcision brings in based on the procedure alone.

When a baby boy is to be [[circumcised]], mother and baby remain in hospital for about one-fourth of a day longer,<ref name="mansfield1995" /> so that increases the profit to the hospital. Early in hospital [[circumcision]] permits obstetricians to make more money.

|quote=As they the saying goes, follow the money. Now you know why neither the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], American Medical Association, [[American Academy of Family Physicians]], or the [[American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists| American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]] haven’t condemned this unnecessary surgery, and why their physician members are quick to recommend the procedure to expectant parents.

<!--The now expired and discredited AAP 2012 ''Circumcision Policy Statement'' stated that "Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine (i.e. non-therapeutic) circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to '''warrant [[third-party payment]]''' for [[circumcision ]] of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn [[circumcision ]] in an unbiased and accurate manner." and "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."<ref>{{REFweb

Parents are reminded that neonatal [[circumcision]] has no [[medical indication]], does not provide treatment for disease, is non-therapeutic, unnecessary, and causes life-long irreversible harm because of the physical and psychic [[trauma]] and loss of the [[https://en.intactiwiki.org/index.php/Foreskin#Physiological_functions multi-functional foreskin]].

Although the [[foreskin ]] has [[Immunological and protective function of the foreskin| immunological and protective functions]], Government medical insurance in the [[United States ]] still holds the antique notion, which originated in the late 19th century, that the [[foreskin]] is a cesspool of disease, and [[circumcision ]] improves hygiene and prevents sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), therefore it is best cut off and insurance should pay for it without any proof of [[medical indication ]] or necessity, so there are no effective controls in force to see that only medically necessary services are covered.<ref name="hodges1997">{{REFbook

}}</ref> This view is not supported by current medical evidence. In reality, the opposite is true. The [[Immunological and protective function of the foreskin| immunological functions of the foreskin]] help to prevent disease, so [[intact]] boys are healthier.

The [https://www.ihs.gov/ Indian Health Service] provides non-therapeutic circumcision to native Americans, even though [[circumcision ]] is not part of the culture of native Americans.

There are about 2 million United States government employees in the [[United States ]] whose health insurance covers non-therapeutic circumcision.

The [https://www.medicare.gov/ United States Medicare Program] provides health insurance for persons who have reached the age of 65 years. It assumes that any man with a [[foreskin]] needs a [[circumcision]]. It does not require proof of medical necessity to provide [[third-party payment]].

Industries that depend on the practice of circumcision, particularly infant [[circumcision ]] include makers of the [[circumstraint]] (the board to which a baby is strapped down to for the procedure), makers of circumcision clamps, manufacturers of circumcision kits, and other utensils used for circumcision.

Foreskins are sold to pharmaceutical companies for stem-cell research, the creation of synthetic [[skin]], and the creation of consumer products. Since the 1980s, private hospitals have been involved in the business of supplying discarded foreskins to private bio-research laboratories and pharmaceutical companies who require human flesh as raw research material.<ref name="hodges1997" /> They also supply foreskins to transnational corporations. Dr. Tania Phillips, professor of dermatology at {{UNI|Boston University|BU}} [http://www.bumc.bu.edu/ Boston University School of Medicine], insisting foreskin gathering and cultivating is scientifically and technologically "very promising." <ref>Ronald Rosenberg. 19 October 1992: 22-23.</ref>

* BioSurface Technology<ref>Companies see $1.5b market in replacement [[skin ]] products. Rosenberg R. ''Boston Globe'' (October 19, 1992): 22-23.</ref>

There are pro-circumcision interest groups that give grants to doctors and researchers to "study" and promote circumcision. Organizations that do this include the [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]]. In 2009, [[Schusterman Family Foundation]] gave a grant to [[mohel ]] and professional infant circumcisor [[Neil Pollock]] to promote infant [[circumcision ]] in Rwanda,<ref name='marketwire 2009-02-24'>{{REFnews

Bollinger (2012) estimated that the total annual cost of non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] to Americans is $3,647,000,000.<ref name="bollinger2012"/>

|accessdate=20202023-0811-2512}}* {{REFweb |url=https://intactamerica.org/economics-of-circumcision/ |title=The Economics of Circumcision: A Full Breakdown of This Penis Business |last=Garrett |first=Connor |publisher=Intact America |date=2023-12-21 |accessdate=2023-12-31}}* {{REFweb |url=https://intactamerica.org/adult-circumcision-cost/ |title=Adult Circumcision Cost: The Profit Motives and Hidden Toll |last=Garrett |first=Connor |init= |publisher=Intact America |date=2024-03-07 |accessdate=2024-05-09

[[Category:MotivesMotive]]