I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway, since I think my previous answer still applies. The reason the government cannot compel people to donate organs is based in responsibility, not in bodily autonomy. Yes, the government would have to violate your bodily autonomy in order to mandate organ donations, but that is not the primary reason why the government cannot issue the mandate. Consider this slightly altered scenario:Here's the question again.
If you are the only available donor for a patient who will die otherwise, and you do not want to donate an organ to this person, this person dies. Should you be charged with murder? If not, why?
A patient will die without a new medical procedure that he cannot afford. You have enough money to pay for the procedure, but you refuse to pay. When the patient dies, should you be charged with murder?
If the sole reason why the government cannot mandate organ donations is that it would violate your bodily autonomy, then the government should be able to force you to help in this scenario, since helping doesn't violate your bodily autonomy. If, on the other hand, the government cannot compel you to solve other people's problems, because they're not your responsibility, then the government can't compel you to pay for somebody else's medical treatment any more than it can compel you to donate an organ.
I therefore submit that bodily autonomy is not the primary principle being tested by the forced organ donation example.
(Note that this example is rooted in the for-profit healthcare system in the US. Can the government force you to pay for other people's healthcare by taxing you and then redistributing the money? In nearly every other developed country, the answer is yes, but the example is about paying for a specific procedure out of pocket, not universal healthcare.)