If my kids have swine flu symptoms and I assume they have the flu when they really have a bacterial infection that should be treated with antibiotics I am endangering their health and the health of everyone they come in contact with.
Because doctors treat viruses like they are bacterial. God forbid that they tell a patient...you have a virus and antibiotics will not work on a virus...and that person gets sicker and dies. TORT REFORM!! WE NEED TORT REFORM so a doctor can actually treat a patient as they need to be...out of medical knowledge and not medical fear. If a doctor suspects bacterial infection what really needs to happen is a culture of the sputum so the bacteria can be identified to determine the best antibiotic. There is a difference in the presentation of a patient with an upper respiratory infection vs influenza.
This has happened also to two people I know who had it, different states. If the person is really sick lung-wise, it is probably a smart CYA for the doc in case the patient gets a secondary bacterial infection through the weakening effects of the flu. However, if the patient is breathing FINE, I'd not take the antibiotic but be glad I had the scrip in case something happened at night or on a weekend.
No, one should not prescribe antibiotics for the swine flu, but the docs have to be careful -- no one knows who the rarer worst case scenario will be. [Do I even need to say it?? BECAUSE THERE IS NO TORT REFORM AND DOCS MUST THROW ALL THE SPAGHETTI ONTO THE WALL for fear they will lose their livelihoods!]