Is dying of cancer the best death? Richard Smith, the journal’s former editor, triggered a global debate among clinicians, patients, and carers in a New Year blog post (http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/12/31/richard-smith-dying-of-cancer-is-the-best-death/) about the best way to die. Cancer, he argued, unlike dementia and organ failure, lets you say goodbye, and “reflect on life, leave last messages, visit special places etc,” His post and a follow-up one (http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2015/01/05/ death-a-response-from-richard-smith/) quicklywentviralacross social media and garnered UK and international coverage.

Thisgraphic(www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231/infographic) showing the links between the UK’s leading sugar experts and the sugar industry was one of the most viewed graphics of the year. It accompanied an investigation, at a time of growing debate worldwide over whether a tax on sugar is the best way to tackle obesity, into the financial ties between academics advising the government on nutrition and the companies producing our food. The controversy that followed has fuelled discussions among food researchers about their links with industry.

This state of the art review provides a single reference point for all those supporting the growing numbers of people living with dementia and seeking to be up to date on the best international practice and evidence.

In this award winning, two part investigation, Deborah Cohen reveals the efforts by industry to divert attention from evidence that bevacizumab (Avastin), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of wet age related macular degeneration, is as good if not better than ranibizumab (Lucentis), the drug currently most commonly prescribed by UK doctors.

After a series of surprising articles in the New England Journal of Medicine signalling a retreat from current efforts to tackle financial conflicts of interest, The BMJ entered the debate to call this new approach a mistake. We published an essay by three former NEJM editors, who called their previous journal’s position“a seriously flawed and inflammatory attack” that tries to rationalise competing interests in the medical profession. The BMJ’s editor in chief, Fiona Godlee, and colleagues added in an editorial that to revisit rigorous standards would “undermine the trustworthiness of medical journals and be a disservice to clinical practice and patient safety.

Amid concerns raised by The BMJ over the safety and effectiveness of two treatments, statins for people at low cardiovascular risk and oseltamivir (Tamiflu) for prevention and initial treatment of influenza, the Academy of Medical Sciences was asked to examine how society should judge the safety and efficacy of drugs. In this much read editorial, two leaders in the campaign for evidence based medicine and greater access to trial data urged the academy to make sure its report really makes a difference. They proposed important changes in six key areas, some requiring funding and some requiring new legislation, if medicine is to be truly evidence based.

This paper was one of the most read of the year, putting the latestdatainthecontextofpreviousevidenceonwhethertaking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the early months of pregnancy increases the risk of birth defects. The study showed reassuring evidence for some SSRIs but suggested that some birth defects occur 2-3.5 times more often among babies born to women treated with paroxetine or fluoxetine early in pregnancy.

In 2014 The BMJ took a clear stance in favour of the assisted dying bill. Oneyearlater,in advance of the first parliamentary vote for almost 20 years,the journal presented a series of articles exploring thepractical reality of this difficult issue confronting doctors and patients. The House of Commons voted against the bill.

Amid a growing stand-off between the UK government and doctors over proposals to increase doctors’ obligations to work at weekends, The BMJ published an analysis comparing mortality among patients admitted to hospital during the week and at the weekend. The paper caused a great deal of debate in The BMJ’s rapid responses and on social media. It found an excess of deaths in people admitted over the weekend but drew no conclusions about the cause of these excess deaths. This did not stop the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, referring to the paper as evidence that more doctors should be working at weekends. The BMJ has called on the health secretary to stop misquoting the paper and to make policies based on the evidence.

As part of an extraordinary long saga, The BMJ published a reanalysis of data from a trial of paroxetine in adolescents. Contrary to the original report published in 2001 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the reanalysis found that the drug was neither safe nor effective. The BMJ reiterated calls for action from the original authors, their institution, the journal, the FDA, and the company GlaxoSmithKline, all of which have failed to do what was needed to correct the misreporting of this trial.

Amid growing concern that government health policies are misinterpreting scientific evidence, The BMJ challenged the credibility of Public Health England, the body created in 2013 to “protect and improve the nation’s health” after it issued advice that electronic cigarettes “are around 95% safer than smoked tobacco.” The advice was based on a research paper that even its authors accepted was “methodologically weak,” and there were also concerns over conflicts of interest surrounding the work’s funding. Debate continues on whether e-cigarettes should be viewed as harm prevention in helping people quit smoking or harmful to public health because they reopen the door for the tobacco industry.