Aren't hospitals and doctors risking fraud charges?

If you've read my previous posts, you already know that I'm an intactivist.  There are many reasons that I am, that I have not gone into detail, as there is a mountain of information out there and I just attempt to point my readers to where the information is rather than re-hash the details here.  But, I seem to continue coming up with thoughts that I have not really seen covered elsewhere.

I am tempted to send this to all doctors and hospitals where infant circumcisions are performed.

This is how I understand the prepuce (foreskin):  During childhood, it's attached to the glans (an indisputable fact) similar to how a fingernail is attached or how a kitten's eyes remain closed until the finish developing.  During the "circumcision" procedure, it is torn away.  In many cases that I've heard, if the parent chooses to keep the boy intact, the parent/caretaker is directed to forcefully retract the foreskin to clean underneath it and to do that repeatedly until it stops adhering.

Now, I'm not a doctor, but: I know that, when a toenail is ripped away, it doesn't grow back the same.  Of course, I didn't rip away my toenail repeatedly.  I wonder if the inner-mucosal part of the foreskin and the glans are permanently damaged by this process.  And, if that's the case, the foreskin probably seems like just "extra skin."  I also imagine that if I removed my toenail repeatedly, I would be increasing the chances for infection.  I also imagine that there would be plenty of scar tissue build-up, leading to a lack of sensitivity.  I have lots of scar tissue where my appendix was removed (3-4 inches in length) and it's like there is no nerves in the scar tissue.

This leads me to believe what I have heard:  In the USA, many boys, that are left intact, end up having to have foreskin amputation later because of problems like skin bridges (scar tissue buildup) and recurrent infections.

Now, either the doctors are culpable because of malpractice or they are committing fraud in order to make the money on performing the circumcision.  Another possibility is that they simply are taught wrong.  I have seen an anatomy book in a doctor's office and it does NOT go into detail about the prepuce; which is why I can see why they just think it's extra skin.  Of course, if you speak with an intact doctor, I doubt they would say that.