As far as I can tell, this is the latest official information from the Office of Management and Budget, which manages the Census. [not sure why the link function didn't work in HTML, but the URL is right, so you can copy and paste in your browser]
url=http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/Ombdir15.html
Everything is going to be bases on the census, and the racial distinctions are sociopolitical, no longer genetic or medically-based in any way. If you think certain groups need to be kept track of, write your congressperson.
From a medical ethics point of view, there is clearly emerging data suggesting that different treatments or approaches might be optimal for those with different genetic ancestries. These distinctions are unlikely to overlap much with meaningless Census distinctions, such as 'Hispanic' (which, after years of debate, has apparently been changed to 'Hispanic or Latino.' The 'Asian or Pacific Islander' category will be separated into two categories -- "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander." Hey, at least the islanders live on islands for pete's sake. My Korean and Chinese families don't want to be grouped with Japanese. My family with 4 Chinese grandparents who just immigrated here from Brazil--what are they? Are they Latino because Portuguese is a Romance Language? Hispanic because they are from South America? I think this is an ethics discussion because even with demonstrable medical distinctions, how does the working doctor categorize the folks sitting in the exam room, and their variegated offspring? Do we wing it on skin pigment (I have dark kids and light kids from curiously mixed parents).
My personal opinion is that the idea of race is a sad vestigial construct without helpful meaning. Here's what I need to know: have any of the child's relatives had sickle-cell disease? Cystic Fibrosis? Hemophilia? You just can't judge a book by its cover. It wouldn't help me to have a place on the chart for 'ethnicity.' But in the Social History section of AC, which is generally retained for some notes, I will note if a child is adopted and from where. I will note there if there are medically-relevant familial risk factors. Here in California, every baby is screened for sickle-cell at birth (since 1990).
Because I don't think racial labels are generally helpful, I also believe that they are a potential problem. I wouldn't want my calling a patient 'white' when they are 1/16 Native American to interfere with their self-description. This may have legal implications, perhaps for Federal contracts or programs. Will it help them or hurt them in gaining a scholarship to define their race in a certain way, especially if whatever institution looks to their physician or medical record for verification?
