part of the swiss people. assisted dying bill in 2014 lord falconer of thoroton tabled an assisted dying bill in the house of lords which passed through second reading and ran out of time during committee stage before the general election. during its passage peers voted down two amendments which were proposed by opponents of the bill. in 2015 labour mp rob marris introduced an assisted dying bill, based on the falconer proposals, into the house of commons. the bill was praised by philip collins, chief leader writer for the times as "a sophisticated and humane attempt" to clarify the law before the courts do so and which unlike religion "will actually ease suffering." archbishop welby's subsequent objections were described as "histrionic" and lacking any religious reason. the bill was rejected by 330 to 118. in june 2016, the bill was re-introduced to the house of lords by former dignity in dying treasurer lord hayward. activities dignity in dying campaigns for patient choice at the end-of-life and supports palliative care and increased funding and provision of hospice care. it also campaigns for new legislation to permit assisted dying within strict safeguards, and promotes the concept and use of advance decisions in england and wales. the group has repeatedly published opinion polls showing considerable public support for a change to the law on assisted dying, as well as showing support from doctors and disabled people. dignity in dying's stated view is that everyone has the right to a dignified death. they interpret this to mean: everybody should be able to choose where they die, who else would be present at that time and the treatment options they would welcome or not. a person should have access to information on their end-of-life options from qualified experts and their carers, family and friends should also be able to access high quality care and support. ultimately an individual should have the right to plan for and then take personal control over their own death, including the medication and pain relief they wish to receive or not. dignity in dying also outline how they go about their campaign: they encourage their supporters to campaign for a change to the current laws so that a terminally ill, mentally competent adult who feels their suffering has become unbearable can opt for an assisted death, subject to strict rules and safeguards. they will lobby politicians and other decision makers, and look to educate legal and healthcare professionals and the public in general to support this drive towards obtaining a comprehensive national end-of-life strategy and working procedures. they would generally attempt to empower terminally ill people (and their families and friends) so that they can obtain a better experience as their end-of-life approaches, including access to information on current rights and such devices as advance decisions. arguments and opposition one of dignity in dying's main arguments is that their proposals for a comprehensive strategy around the issue of assisted dying would provide safeguards and protection for an individual from, for example, the coercive pressures to die that some people believe can be exerted by families of the frail or relatively disadvantaged on occasions. dignity in dying argue that at the moment not only can unscrupulous people do this in a relatively unchecked way, but that the legal authorities can generally carry out investigations only after a person's death, whereas under their plans there would be safeguards and checks upfront to ensure a person was fully informed and counselled as to their rights and options and additionally protected from possible malign influences. dignity in dying also state that their proposals would alleviate a great deal of the stress and worry that approaching death can bring to a person, particularly one suffering significant pain from a terminal illness. the use of advance decisions can help significantly but they also believe that if a right to an assisted death is available then the very knowledge of this fact can alleviate many of the worries an individual might have. dignity in dying supporters argue that the recent trends towards the use of the dignitas clinic in switzerland and press stories regarding botched suicides and do-it-yourself advice would be stopped because individuals would know that when and if they wished to finally request an assisted death in the uk, it would be available as arranged. indeed, studies from parts of the world that have legalised assisted suicide report that many plans put in place for an early death are not taken up as people end up dying naturally, with the peace of mind brought about by knowing that an assisted death was available if pain and suffering had got too much. for example, in the u.s. state of oregon in 2007, it was reported that of the 30,000 deaths in the state that year, 10,000 people considered an assisted death, around 1,000 spoke to their doctor about it, 85 actually got a prescription and just 49 went on to have an assisted death. dignity in dying are often opposed by groups such as care not killing, a group that includes the christian medical fellowship, the church of england and the church of scotland. some people of a religious persuasion take the view that all life is sacred and that only natural processes and divine intervention should determine a person's death. dignity in dying argue that if a person does not wish to take advantage of a change in the law which would allow for an assisted death then that is down to personal choice. however it strongly opposes opponents who would try to deny an individual a right to a personal choice in the matter by blocking enabling legislation. meanwhile, opponents argue that the introduction of the sort of legislation supported by dignity in dying can be a "slippery slope" towards more draconian measures. dignity in dying refutes this by pointing out that the will of parliament would be paramount, and any change in the law would be subject to ongoing review once established. they also point out that in those jurisdictions where aid in dying has been made legal (such as the us state of oregon), the eligibility criteria have not been widened from their initial point. additionally, some disability rights campaigners are concerned that an assisted dying law would lead to extra pressure on some disabled persons to seek a premature death, as they might consider their lives to be devalued. a poll in 2015 found that 86% of people with a disability believed that a person with a terminal and painful illness from which they were certain to die should be allowed an assisted death; however, polling by scope (charity) reports that the majority of disabled people have concerns about a change in the law concerning assisted dying. dignity in dying point to other parts of the world that have some form of assisted dying or similar legislation, which is generally popular and supported by the majority. these include the netherlands and belgium in europe, and oregon, washington state and vermont in the united states. dignity in dying support the legislation of assisted dying (as legal in oregon under the oregon death with dignity act), whereby a doctor prescribes a life-ending dose of medication to a mentally competent, terminally ill adult at the patient's request, and which the patient administers. this is different to assisted suicide, whereby somebody provides assistance to die to a person who is not terminally ill, and euthanasia, which involves a third party administering the life-ending medication to a patient. another argument used by dignity in dying regards the use of the dignitas organization in switzerland, saying that the availability of assisted dying in switzerland is simply "outsourcing" the problem. some proponents of assisted dying legislation think the proposals from dignity in dying do not go far enough. organisations such as my death my decision and humanists uk argue that assisted dying legislation should not be limited to those with less than six months to live, but should be available to all mentally competent adults who are suffering unbearably and incurably, irrespective of their projected lifespan. these sentiments appeared to be echoed by supreme court justice lord neuberger in the judgement of r (nicklinson) v ministry of justice in 2013, when he said "quite apart from the notorious difficulty in assessing life expectancy even for the terminally ill, there seems to me to be significantly more justification in assisting people to die if they have the prospect of living for many years a life that they regarded as valueless, miserable and often painful, than if they have only a few months left to live".