I know the name of the urologist.

I go to the hospital as a young adult, made an appointment with another urologist at the same hospital (to prevent myself from ending up in jail).

I ask her to check my medical record, it's not there.

She proposes to check the record under my mother's name: nope, under my stepfather's name: nope, my father's name: nope, and my father didn't even know it happened.

Meanwhile the university had some recent philosophy thesis paper that tried to answer the question why no one in my country has sued any urologist regarding circumcision, their conclusion? some random psychological stuff.

Psychological? the suppression of evidence (or access to the evidence) is not something that happens in my head, but in the real outside world.

I my case I know the name of the urologist, but we are denied access to legal evidence.

And why would they incriminate themselves? its not like they "woops-what-are-my-hands-doing" accidentally put the sample of foreskin in the sterile packaging again boy after boy, and "woops-my-arms-uncrontrollably" put it in their fridge until the medical courier picks it up, and remuneration magically follows without these surgeons understanding what they are doing. Of course they perfectly know what they are doing. It's organised harvesting of foreskin tissue. Why would they incriminate themselves with a paper trail? How naive the rest of society can be: we know these people select their profession because it is an auspicious hidey hole.

And this is in a hospital setting.

Now reread the posted article, every time people argue to only ban religious settings they pretend there is no trauma in hospital settings. The real reason is they want to lucratively harvest the tissues for themselves. It's a limited hang-out every time. Journalists either aren't doing their job, or are being censored by their superiors.