Or are you (and I include in "you" any human being with the choice) going to want every antibiotic available for your loved one?
Maybe I miss the point of your comment, but if not, I doubt it is a viable strategy.
I don't know if we're going to need to "sacrifice" people who have poly-drug resistant bacteria, but I'm guessing it won't be in our control anyway, if the option is between doing nothing and the patients dying versus doing everything we can and still having the patient die. Damage control is critical, and sentimentality can't get in the way.
FWIW, I wrote an in depth report on controlling poly drug resistant tuberculosis in poor countries when I was in college... the conclusion was that quarantine was not only necessary, it was the only effective course of action for people with full spectrum drug resistant TB. Of course, TB is far more infectious and lethal than garden variety "bacteria".
The only thing to do is to remove the "apply antibiotics because it looks like we're doing something" and save the antibiotics to use for cases where it will actually work.
From recent experience of being hospitalized with pneumonia, they were pumping me full of antibiotics and asking questions later. The culture on my sputum never came back with a clear answer even a couple days later. But they found an antibiotic that worked. I doubt I'll ever know what bacteria ultimately caused the infection. Clearly it was resistant to a few antibiotics that weren't working. Should they instead have left me with a 104 degree fever near death for a few days while trying to figure out if antibiotics would be effective or not, even though the culturing process might not even give a clear answer?
It's going to be costly but we're "back-loading" our medical process so that we leave the problem to the next generation of healthcare providers.
It's like we want everything for free - get sick? just give out a ton of medicine! Eventually we have to pay for it.