Antibiotic restrictions present difficult choices for physicians, patients and payors. Physicians must choose between the welfare of the patient and the directive of healthcare systems to restrict antibiotics. These may be supported with incentives or penalties, causing a conflict of interest. The patient has an expectation of best care, but will often be unaware of antibiotic restriction policies and is therefore not fully informed about his/her treatment. For payors, reducing the volume of antibiotic prescribing and/or prescribing less expensive antibiotics are apparently attractive targets for cost savings. However, we are only now beginning to understand the downstream consequences of restricting antibiotics on outcomes and costs. We are hampered by the lack of a universal ethical framework and information on outcomes. In addition, the concept of 'effective' or 'best' therapy will vary among different groups. Balancing the risks of treating or not treating with antibiotics is complex. Suboptimal therapy, that fails to eradicate the bacterial infection, exposes the patient to the risk of poor outcome, adverse events and the wider risk of antimicrobial resistance. Failure to treat where the risk of a poor outcome exceeds the risk of an adverse event is also ethically unacceptable. The key to rational antibiotic prescribing is to identify those patients who need antibiotic therapy and optimise therapy to achieve the fastest bacterial and clinical cure. We are only now beginning to assemble the information and tools to be able to make such decisions. Above all, we should treat on the basis of knowledge.