As with many controversial topics, there are pros and cons to both sides.
The argument to make antibiotics available only after consulting a medical professional is fairly strong: Many individuals take all sorts of antibiotics at the first sign of a sickness, whether or not it is warranted. People usually get three to four upper respiratory tract viral infections every year. Most are unpleasant but not serious. Sometimes the symptoms are quite strong and you may feel very, very sick. In any case, antibiotics are useless against this type of sickness. When a person uses antibiotics when not needed, the person is inadvertently giving bacteria an opportunity to develop immunity against the drug.
In the past, even though the doctors were fairly certain my malady was a virus, I have had doctors prescribe an antibiotic to me as they mumbled something about "secondary infection." I got the feeling that they were so tired of patients complaining that they came to the doctor's office and they weren't leaving without some kind of pill to make them feel better. Instead of educating the patients that there is no drug to fight the common cold, they were accustomed to simply giving them a prescription to just shut them up.
The argument to keep antibiotics available over the counter also has its merits: Many people simply can not afford to see a medical professional. Is it not better from a public policy point of view for individuals to get to some kind of attention? The pharmacists are fairly knowledgeable about the effects and uses of the drugs and can give some advice. Some of the best medical advice I have ever gotten was from a pharmacist. "Go home and get some rest. If you don't feel better in a day or two, go see a doctor."
I simply love debating both sides of argument with myself. Who knew that a monger forum would provide such amusing opportunities?