^ Yeah, giving them as prophylaxis is kind of bad practice generally but there are certain situations where it is indicated. If she has started, she should finish unless there are problems due to side effects.

Does not mean they are not given. Doctors give antibiotics for viruses lol. Plus, many have thier "pet" antibiotic they like to use most of the time.

antibiotics shouldn't be used as a pre-emptive measure to prevent an infection (exception to immediatly following some surgical procedures)

Reasons why:  #1  Un-necessary use of antibiotics contributes to antibiotic resistances while providing no benefit (all antibiotic use contributes to antibiotic resistance.  as a side note the worst thing that someone can do in regard to antibiotic resistance is stopping mid way through the treatment.)

#2 a small portion of the population carries a large quantity of a particular G- bacteria in their intestines which can induce septic shock when the person is treated with antibiotics without accompanying immunosuppresants.

Agreed, but some instances it should be used. Reason 1 is right on the mark. Number 2, well, anytime they get an infection that needs them this will be found out. So i don't think it is a very strong reason.

Very true, but doctors claimed that Ab's in this situation was, "to prevent secondary bacterial infection". However, the evidence just doesn't support this being good practice.

Never said it was good practice.

She was given antibiotics cause her wounds showed infection.  The doctor said such infections can lead to serious problems - including leg amputation.  It was a bad fall.