who have suffered greatly -- notably Tony Nicklinson, Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy -- and whose personal tragedies can leave no sane man or woman untouched. Implicitly there is a suggestion that those of us who believe any change in law would leave vulnerable people at risk are caricatured as uncaring or somehow in favour of suffering and pain. So we must brace ourselves for what will be an emotively loaded and well funded campaign which will seek to pick off members of the Lords rather than testing the principles in the elected House of Commons. This is about trying to wear down the Upper House -- and to ignore its recent reports and votes. The arguments have not changed one iota since, in 2004, a full parliamentary committee of inquiry examined the issues at stake. That Select Committee, chaired by a former Lord Chancellor, occupied some 246 Hansard columns and three volumes covering around 1,000 pages of evidence and commentary. It took expert evidence from over 140 witnesses in 45 sessions in the UK, the US State of Oregon, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and it considered around 14,000 letters and emails from members of the public. When an 'assisted dying' bill then came before the Lords it was defeated by 148 votes to 100. Three years later when Lord Falconer -- who will again be introducing the new Bill -- tried to amend another parliamentary bill to legalise assisted suicide, his amendments were defeated by 194 votes to 141.