Changes

}}</ref> Thereafter American doctors began on a quest to medicalize the practice of circumcision as a preventor preventer of a myriad of diseases, and that endeavor continues to this day.There is a huge bias in favor of non-therapeutic and therapeutic circumcision in the American medical literature.<ref name="fleiss1999">{{REFbook |last=Fleiss |first=Paul |author-link= |last2= |first2= |author2-link= |year=1999 |title=An Analysis of Bias Regarding Circumcision in American Medical Literature |url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ljZZ9ZvD_kQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA379&ots=GA2KpzMECk&sig=jFqDYQhV0sqAWil6LDZWXnQdJO8#v=onepage&q&f=false |work=Male and Female Circumcision: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice. |editor=Denniston, George C., Hodges, Frederick Mansfield, Milos, Marilyn |edition= |volume= |chapter= |pages=379-401 |location=New York |publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers |isbn=0-306-46131-5 |quote= |accessdate=2020-08-08 |note=}}</ref> As a result of the long history of doctors condemning the presence of the [[foreskin]] and expounding the virtues of circumcision, curriculum regarding the [[foreskin]] and its [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| multiple functions]] remain largely absent from American medical literature. Information on the [[Retraction of the foreskin| proper development of the foreskin]] is largely absent, diagrams of male genitalia present the [[penis]] as circumcised, and if the foreskin is mentioned at all, it is in the context of circumcision. In short, most of what is taught in American medicine regarding the foreskin is how to cut it off. When circumcised doctors attempt to write a circumcision policy, the outcome is likely to heavily biased in favor of circumcision.<ref name="goldman2005">{{REFjournal

|journal=Paedatrics Paediatrics & Child Health